Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gouging the Sick: Hightower on TPP [View all]bluesbassman
(20,383 posts)13. You may have no respect for Jim Hightower and Nation of Change...
but perhaps Joseph Stiglitz and the New York Times carries some weight.
There are two ways the office of the trade representative can use the T.P.P. to maintain or raise drug prices and profits.
The first is to restrict competition from generics. Its axiomatic that more competition means lower prices. When companies have to fight for customers, they end up cutting their prices. When a patent expires, any company can enter the market with a generic version of a drug. The differences in prices between brand-name and generic drugs are mind- and budget-blowing. Just the availability of generics drives prices down: In generics-friendly India, for example, Gilead Sciences, which makes an effective hepatitis-C drug, recently announced that it would sell the drug for a little more than 1 percent of the $84,000 it charges here.
Thats why, since the United States opened up its domestic market to generics in 1984, they have grown from 19 percent of prescriptions to 86 percent, by some accounts saving the United States government, consumers and employers more than $100 billion a year. Drug companies stand to gain handsomely if the T.P.P. limits the sale of generics.
The second strategy is to undermine government regulation of drug prices. More competition is not the only way to keep down the prices of essential goods and services. Governments can also directly restrain prices through law, or effectively restrain them by denying reimbursement to patients for overpriced drugs thus encouraging companies to bring down their prices to approved levels. These regulatory approaches are especially important in markets where competition is limited, as it is in the drug market. If the United States Trade Representative gets its way, the T.P.P. will limit the ability of partner countries to restrict prices. And the pharmaceutical companies surely hope the standard they help set in this agreement will become global for example, by becoming the starting point for United States negotiations with the European Union over the same issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/opinion/dont-trade-away-our-health.html?_r=0
The first is to restrict competition from generics. Its axiomatic that more competition means lower prices. When companies have to fight for customers, they end up cutting their prices. When a patent expires, any company can enter the market with a generic version of a drug. The differences in prices between brand-name and generic drugs are mind- and budget-blowing. Just the availability of generics drives prices down: In generics-friendly India, for example, Gilead Sciences, which makes an effective hepatitis-C drug, recently announced that it would sell the drug for a little more than 1 percent of the $84,000 it charges here.
Thats why, since the United States opened up its domestic market to generics in 1984, they have grown from 19 percent of prescriptions to 86 percent, by some accounts saving the United States government, consumers and employers more than $100 billion a year. Drug companies stand to gain handsomely if the T.P.P. limits the sale of generics.
The second strategy is to undermine government regulation of drug prices. More competition is not the only way to keep down the prices of essential goods and services. Governments can also directly restrain prices through law, or effectively restrain them by denying reimbursement to patients for overpriced drugs thus encouraging companies to bring down their prices to approved levels. These regulatory approaches are especially important in markets where competition is limited, as it is in the drug market. If the United States Trade Representative gets its way, the T.P.P. will limit the ability of partner countries to restrict prices. And the pharmaceutical companies surely hope the standard they help set in this agreement will become global for example, by becoming the starting point for United States negotiations with the European Union over the same issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/opinion/dont-trade-away-our-health.html?_r=0
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fuck those third world people, they're probably brown anyway. And generics? Bah- insurance..
X_Digger
May 2015
#12
Sure.. so how many 'ultra-cool' new tech jobs is this mega-pharma-corp-protect supposed to generate?
X_Digger
May 2015
#41
That would be real cool and all that - except that "WE" don't keep the profits,
djean111
May 2015
#32
In a country where Medicare is not allowed to negotiate lower prices for drugs,
djean111
May 2015
#39
drug profiteering was a huge part of the Heritage Care giveaway. sounds like this fits hand in hand
Doctor_J
May 2015
#4
See post #9. Hope you can come up with something better than The Nation of Change.
Hoyt
May 2015
#10
You can't find a citation on this issue from a Union or anyone else, but the clown Hightower quoted
Hoyt
May 2015
#43
Nothing in first link says the TPP will keep Medicare from negotiating drug prices.
Hoyt
May 2015
#45
Again, you need to study drug prices in poor countries. I certainly can see how failed ng to
Hoyt
May 2015
#17
This patent shit is horrible. I get why they need that protection for a short period of time
NoJusticeNoPeace
May 2015
#26