The New Face of US Health Care: $1,000 per Pill

[marmar]

The New Face of US Health Care: $1,000 per Pill

Tuesday, 23 December 2014 10:06
By Peter S. Arno and Michael H. Davis, Truthout | Op-Ed


For all of the outrage about the $1,000 a day cost for Sovaldi, the new hepatitis C pill marketed by Gilead Sciences, why hasn't anyone been arguing that federal law mandates that it be made available to the public at a reasonable price? If it is not, according to the 1980 revision of US patent law known as the Bayh-Dole Act, the government can use its "march-in" rights and insist that the drug be licensed to other manufacturers that will make the drug more widely available.

More than 3.2 million people in the United States and as many as 150 million worldwide are infected with hepatitis C. The staggering cost of providing new treatments to even a fraction of this population raises well-justified concerns in public and private insurance markets. But, because these drugs were most likely invented with federal funding, government rights under US patent law may offer a solution to skyrocketing costs.

For all the talk of bending the cost curve under the Affordable Care Act, there has been a resounding silence when it comes to constraining pharmaceutical prices. But now, the implications of financing these drugs in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense, and federal and state prisons can no longer be ignored. Needless to say, the private insurance industry is also scrambling.

The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that if only 30 percent of hepatitis C-infected Medicare enrollees were treated with Sovaldi over the next two years, program costs would increase by $6.5 billion, and premiums and outlays for all Part D (prescription drug plan) enrollees would rise by 8 percent. A view from prison looks even worse. An estimated 1.8 million people behind bars have hepatitis C, and treating even a fraction of them would cost billions of taxpayer dollars. On the Medicaid side, where hundreds of thousands of enrollees may have hepatitis C, things look equally dire. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/28171-the-new-face-of-us-health-care-1-000-per-pill

[whatthehey]

1. And they need to sell 11 million pills at that price just to recover upfront costs, before marginal

They paid $11B for the company that owned the patent and very little else.

[djean111]

3. Because they knew they could gouge people with impunity.

[jwirr]

2. So we are going to just let the poor die of Hepatitis C? I think this one of those times that we

need to make a deal with the company to lower the price and pay off their debt at a slower rate. I am not expecting this to happen but that is what should happen.

[Marrah_G]

4. profiting off the pain and suffering of others is a terrible thing.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. It needs to be a life-in-prison thing

[Nye Bevan]

5. How about making the length of time for patent protection dependent upon the price?

So if the drug company wants the 10 years of patent protection (or whatever the standard period is) they must make the drug available at a more reasonable price. If they want to charge $1000 a pill, fine, but then let them lose the patent protection after a much shorter period of time.

[xchrom]

6. du rec.

[MadDAsHell]

7. We gotta figure out how to control R&D and shorten the development time...

the drugs hitting the market over the last few years began development during the Clinton administration. Of course there's insane profit also built in, but there's also no doubt that a large portion of the initial cost of these drugs is due to the years (and sometimes decade +) of development costs that are put in before a dime of revenue comes in. There's often millions (or even billions) to break even.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. If we had single payer and did government research, we wouldn't need to break even.

We spend money on roads, etc. without needing to recoup the costs. That's just part of having a livable country.

Medicine for profit should be illegal.

[Doctor_J]

8. freedom!!!!! socialism!!!!!! bronze plan!!!!

Healthcare in the US has little to do with caring for the health of the citizens. Profits first, then healthcare.

[SomethingFishy]

9. +1 it takes a nation of fucked up priorities

to want to profit off of the sickness of it's citizens.