August 8, 20223 yr Author 10 minutes ago, Toastrel said: There were Dem tricks involved, right? Well, it was an attempt to force private insurers into a price control system. Which I'm not actually in support of, strictly speaking. The issue is that the reason prices are high are because of crony capitalists that have constructed barriers to competition and a lack of political will to ensure a healthy competitive market. There are plenty of cases in healthcare where the static demand for healthcare against limited supply results in a market where costs are growing significantly faster than inflation. Insulin shouldn't be one of them. Insulin doesn't require excessive R&D overhead. It's a 100 year old well known product - a commodity - that should be seeing benefits that come with economies of scale. But what you see is production of insulin concentrated among three major suppliers who then exploit regulatory capture policies (supported variously by both Democrats and Republicans depending on how it benefits their specific district/state) to keep prices artificially high. This is an instance where politicians have failed to properly preserve a healthy competitive market, which should be the overriding economic priority of any politician who wants to see our markets responsive to consumers. Anyway, it's an uncomplicated portion of the bill that has a lot of ramifications. And I don't think having the caps on Medicare pricing OR private insurers in this case is the right way to fix it. But it does make for a nice bullet point on a campaign mailer, so I guess that's something.
August 8, 20223 yr Author What's sorta scary is that in response to what can only be described as a market failure as it relates to insulin pricing, states are looking to manufacture their own insulin. California wants to take the route Texas has with its energy grid and create an entirely in-state insulin manufacturing center. Getting a center up and running from scratch DOES cost a lot of money (economies of scale come after the necessarily complex process of engineering production), but the state is trying to move ahead with this in part to erase the FDA from the picture as interstate commerce would not apply (theoretically). I'd see it as an utter failure if individual states started to have to do this because Washington has allowed such a market failure to take hold at a national level. This is how you get actual socialism.
August 8, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Well, it was an attempt to force private insurers into a price control system. Which I'm not actually in support of, strictly speaking. The issue is that the reason prices are high are because of crony capitalists that have constructed barriers to competition and a lack of political will to ensure a healthy competitive market. There are plenty of cases in healthcare where the static demand for healthcare against limited supply results in a market where costs are growing significantly faster than inflation. Insulin shouldn't be one of them. Insulin doesn't require excessive R&D overhead. It's a 100 year old well known product - a commodity - that should be seeing benefits that come with economies of scale. But what you see is production of insulin concentrated among three major suppliers who then exploit regulatory capture policies (supported variously by both Democrats and Republicans depending on how it benefits their specific district/state) to keep prices artificially high. This is an instance where politicians have failed to properly preserve a healthy competitive market, which should be the overriding economic priority of any politician who wants to see our markets responsive to consumers. Anyway, it's an uncomplicated portion of the bill that has a lot of ramifications. And I don't think having the caps on Medicare pricing OR private insurers in this case is the right way to fix it. But it does make for a nice bullet point on a campaign mailer, so I guess that's something. A drug that the original patent was sold for $1. To prevent what we have today.
August 8, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Well, it was an attempt to force private insurers into a price control system. Which I'm not actually in support of, strictly speaking. The issue is that the reason prices are high are because of crony capitalists that have constructed barriers to competition and a lack of political will to ensure a healthy competitive market. There are plenty of cases in healthcare where the static demand for healthcare against limited supply results in a market where costs are growing significantly faster than inflation. Insulin shouldn't be one of them. Insulin doesn't require excessive R&D overhead. It's a 100 year old well known product - a commodity - that should be seeing benefits that come with economies of scale. But what you see is production of insulin concentrated among three major suppliers who then exploit regulatory capture policies (supported variously by both Democrats and Republicans depending on how it benefits their specific district/state) to keep prices artificially high. This is an instance where politicians have failed to properly preserve a healthy competitive market, which should be the overriding economic priority of any politician who wants to see our markets responsive to consumers. Anyway, it's an uncomplicated portion of the bill that has a lot of ramifications. And I don't think having the caps on Medicare pricing OR private insurers in this case is the right way to fix it. But it does make for a nice bullet point on a campaign mailer, so I guess that's something. I thought the real issue is that as a biologic, the cost and investment required to get a generic approved is almost the same as developing a new drug. So there's no real incentive to create a generic and lower pricing. You can threaten it, and then one of the 3 players pays you not to do it, but nobody really is willing to make the investment. Especially when politicians want to cap the price... Once again -- politicians trying to solve a problem they created and somehow would make it worse.
August 8, 20223 yr Author Just now, vikas83 said: I thought the real issue is that as a biologic, the cost and investment required to get a generic approved is almost the same as developing a new drug. So there's no real incentive to create a generic and lower pricing. You can threaten it, and then one of the 3 players pays you not to do it, but nobody really is willing to make the investment. Especially when politicians want to cap the price... Once again -- politicians trying to solve a problem they created and somehow would make it worse. There are barriers that are specific to insulin as a biologic that make it difficult, but given demand I'd expect this to be a case where the market would be able to provide a solution at scale that works. Patents are another issue altogether, with the major producers of insulin slow-rolling changes out in a planned-obsolescence style that make incremental improvements to insulin while also resetting the clock on generics. The insulin of today isn't quite the same as it was in generations past. I don't necessarily have an issue with those making significant improvements getting their allotment of time as a sole sourcer, but this seems like it would be another opportunity for selling "last year's model" at a reduced price.
August 8, 20223 yr Just now, JohnSnowsHair said: There are barriers that are specific to insulin as a biologic that make it difficult, but given demand I'd expect this to be a case where the market would be able to provide a solution at scale that works. Patents are another issue altogether, with the major producers of insulin slow-rolling changes out in a planned-obsolescence style that make incremental improvements to insulin while also resetting the clock on generics. The insulin of today isn't quite the same as it was in generations past. I don't necessarily have an issue with those making significant improvements getting their allotment of time as a sole sourcer, but this seems like it would be another opportunity for selling "last year's model" at a reduced price. Drug companies making small formulation changes to extend patent protection is a standard business practice. The issue is simple in my mind -- what company is going to make the massive investment to create a generic when it costs almost as much as developing a new drug? Developing a new drug would come with patent protection, while the generic would have much lower margins. Then you add on the threats of price caps, and no company is going to decide this is a good use of capital.
August 8, 20223 yr Author 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Drug companies making small formulation changes to extend patent protection is a standard business practice. The issue is simple in my mind -- what company is going to make the massive investment to create a generic when it costs almost as much as developing a new drug? Developing a new drug would come with patent protection, while the generic would have much lower margins. Then you add on the threats of price caps, and no company is going to decide this is a good use of capital. Biosimilars are beginning to compete a little in the insulin market though, no? If it was just about the capital investment I don't think you'd see that.
August 8, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Biosimilars are beginning to compete a little in the insulin market though, no? If it was just about the capital investment I don't think you'd see that. I know one got approved like a year ago, but you need a bunch more to drive down pricing.
August 8, 20223 yr Author 16 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I know one got approved like a year ago, but you need a bunch more to drive down pricing. I think there's five or six now, but don't quote me. I've only scanned the occasional headline, was more interested in it when a now deceased relative was reliant on it.
August 14, 20223 yr I'd call this child indoctrination if it weren't too dumb even for toddlers to see through.
August 16, 20223 yr Republican candidates are struggling to raise funds. It might have something to do with the previous post.
August 16, 20223 yr They've cut bait with OZ. They see that race as lost already. Georgia is only a matter of time.
August 16, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, toolg said: Republican candidates are struggling to raise funds. It might have something to do with the previous post. Trump has been drinking their milkshake for years. The grass roots funders send straight to Trump. You wanna know why Trump rules the party despite everything? Follow da mo-nay. All of it goes to Trump and he doesn't spend a dime of it anything or anybody else, he just does a rally sends a faux tweet and calls it a day.
August 17, 20223 yr Cheney is the last of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump to face a primary challenge. Of those 10, only two have prevailed and will go on to the general election in November. Remember when people were saying the party was turning on Trump? That was fun.
August 17, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said: I'm not saying the election was stolen or not. or you should believe or not, I truly dont give a f*** but it's not a hard concept to understand. If you had a buddy who was terrible at golf. Never beat you or any of your friends. Didnt practice, didnt leave his basement, and then all of a sudden he comes to you and says he shot par at pebble beach you'd be a little hesitant to believe him. OR* if there were "gray area" methods to get such a great score. In my opinion, theres just too many coincidences in that election that I truly dont believe it was a "fair" election. Ya we know, bud. You're just asking questions.
August 17, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said: I'm not saying the election was stolen or not. or you should believe or not, I truly dont give a f*** but it's not a hard concept to understand. If you had a buddy who was terrible at golf. Never beat you or any of your friends. Didnt practice, didnt leave his basement, and then all of a sudden he comes to you and says he shot par at pebble beach you'd be a little hesitant to believe him. OR* if there were "gray area" methods to get such a great score. In my opinion, theres just too many coincidences in that election that I truly dont believe it was a "fair" election. par at pebble beach...that's your analogy? cheeto was a f'n disaster & 81 million voters showed up to vote his a** out of office. biden just happed to be his opponent.
August 17, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said: I didnt ask a question. I didnt say people should be asking questions. I dont give a F*** what most people think of the 2020 election. What i AM SAYING is, I can totally understand how people are questioning the election. Uh huh, and have we told you how proud of you we are for being able to understand them? Way to go, buddy.
Create an account or sign in to comment