cnn.com/2023/08/29/politics....
The Biden administration unveiled Tuesday the names of the first 10 drugs subject to price negotiations in Medicare, including blood thinners and diabetes medications.
They are: Eliquis, Jardiance, Xarelto, Januvia, Farxiga, Entresto, Enbrel, Imbruvica, Stelara, and Fiasp and certain other insulins made by Novo Nordisk, including NovoLog.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
On the one hand, seems like the government will inevitably be too slow. By the time they finish with the negotiations (and lawsuits), ibrutinib may well end up down the list for first line treatment recommendations.
On the other hand… if ibrutinib is 50% the cost of other newer drugs, that could drive down the overall market. Or, drug prices outside Medicare will go up to compensate for the government pushing down forcefully on half the US market.
I actually don’t think this is going to go anywhere, because I expect the pharma companies to win enough in court to force Medicare to decouple individual drug negotiations, which will lower the government’s leverage quite a bit.
I’d be OK with that. The current system has major flaws, but cost controls inevitably lead to reduced supply. I’d rather the drug companies keep devoting resources to leukemia research. They won’t if they don’t see profit in it.
Well, so much for the good news I thought I was posting. I guess from your point of view, the government wasn’t slow enough to negotiate these drug prices.
It's a complicated issue. I don't know the right answer, that's for sure.
If you go 100% subsidized healthcare (or 100% cost-controlled, as the Medicare situation is aiming for in the long run), you kill much of the incentive for research. Countries with completely socialized medicine routinely don't even provide access to already-researched new medicines, let alone pay for substantial drug development.
If you go 100% private healthcare, you get the mess we have in America. Drugs do get developed and deployed, but the disparities in costs and access are wide and are not fair by any measure. And the "100% private" is a fiction, as our society is always going to (inefficiently) bail out the private system when coverage fails. Hospitals aren't turning away non-payers, nor should they.
I'd prefer a basics-plus system like Germany deploys, which provides at least the standard of care for everyone at costs that are effectively scaled by income (they fold it into the income tax scheme which is progressive), while enabling a private supplemental market that provides incentives for improvement. But that might not work for larger primary markets, not sure.
No skin off my back. I am a 100% combat disabled veteran. I am glad others may be able to afford the medical care that I get at no monetary cost.
Talking care of business
Acronyms and Initialisms
Medicare will begin nationwide coverage of CAR T-cell therapy
IBRUTINIB - for 21 months, now stopped
Ibrutinib. To take or not?
