Let's Talk About Drug Prices.
The reason this points to larger problems for passing legislation can be seen all over Twitter, beginning with the words of the former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich: "Always follow the money." On the issue of healthcare reform as a whole, these words speak volumes of the actions of Congresspeople. Between those that support, and those who do not support the plan to lower prescription drug costs by making Medicare a negotiator, there are two common themes-
Those in support claim that those who do not are subject to the big pharmaceutical companies' money and favor profits from their contributions over their constituents. In fact, according to OpenSecrets, Schrader and Peters, two of the three Democrats to refuse their support "are among the two biggest recent Democratic recipients of pharmaceutical industry donations" (link). Kyrsten Sinema, a Senator from Arizona, recently denounced her support for the plan; with many Democrats and Progressives jumping to point out, she too, is one of the largest recipients of pharmaceutical industry contributions in Congress on Twitter (link).
Republicans and the Democrats who declined their support for the plan argue any plan to lower drug prices will eliminate drug innovation and pathways to cures in the future by capping the revenue investors are seeking (link). Ultimately this makes the argument about affordability vs. medical innovation, a pretty dim and quite sad choice. The Energy & Commerce GOP and GOP members' Twitter pages have a lot to say on the topic, centering mainly around other country's lacking medical innovations and protecting pharmaceutical investors' pockets.
All this talk makes one thing certain, we are a long way from progress on outrageous prescription drug prices, leaving average Americans to pay the price.
I remember seeing something about this plan recently and I agree with your stance that this will led to larger problems surrounding drug prices and healthcare costs. I think that it is very obvious that those who do not support the plan would argue that it would eliminate drug innovation and things along that nature. If anything I think that this would increase the competition of drug innovation it is sad to see that the decision is being based off of affordability vs. medical innovation like you said. From your post, I was able to further expand my knowledge on an issue that I briefly heard about, so good work!
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate how much of a hold pharmaceutical companies have on politicians. As you stated, just follow the money. I understand that medical innovation could be affected if cost of medication were cut. We wouldn't have to cut the cost of all medications though. There is no reasonable excuse for us to not lower the cost of necessary medications like insulin. Unfortunately, as long as there is big money in politics, these things do not look likely to change.
ReplyDeleteIn such a technical cut and dry business deal it is surprising to see that it all comes down to a very deep philosophical argument about the ultimate goal of medicine and what we want human health to look like in the future. The two sides are either have more people who are generally healthy now and in the future or have a small group of people who are extraordinarily healthy and can continue to push the boundaries of human life span. This doesn't seem like the best environment to share my personal views, but it is certainly a difficult question to answer at best.
ReplyDeleteIt is incredible that despite the argument of low innovation, other countries which negotiate with drug companies are still competitive innovators in medicine. Big Pharma is not interested in healing the sick, they are interested in profiting off of the sick. I've linked a documentary by frontline that talks about this exact issue in relation to the opioid crisis. Definitely worth a watch if you're interested.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/opioids-inc/