Right, but I'm arguing that the US system is not really optimised for any of those things, the prices are high because drug, equipment and other costs are higher than they need to be. So even though that trade off exists, it's not necessarily causing the problem.
Also please do bear in mind that in the UK we have private healthcare as wel…
Right, but I'm arguing that the US system is not really optimised for any of those things, the prices are high because drug, equipment and other costs are higher than they need to be. So even though that trade off exists, it's not necessarily causing the problem.
Also please do bear in mind that in the UK we have private healthcare as well as the NHS. I am just about to use it to skip the line for an MRI, if I can persuade my employer to pay which they probably will. So in fact you don't even really need to "pick one".
One reason drug costs are higher in the US is that US prices subsidize research, which European countries then benefit from when they buy US-developed drugs at European capped prices. Again, McArdle writes about this.
I'd argue while this is true, it's important only if you're being quite credulous with respect to what these companies are saying to justify their costs. In other words it doesn't have to be true, and I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for actors outside the US to be objecting to unnecessary costs. I think the issues are well out of scope for a casual discussion.
I don't know her, but Libertarians in general strike me as credulous when it comes to what companies tell them they are doing.
Also there seems to be a somewhat nationalistic flavour to this perspective. In fact not all drug companies are US companies, but they do all behave in a similar way. I would dispute that any of them are particularly innovative at this stage, much of the actual discovery work happens in universities.
I think we're operating with different levels of familiarity with American drug development. If you want to read about company/academic partnerships in research from someone who is very critical of drug companies, check out Vinay Prasad. But the level of company involvement and the high dollar amounts of private investment are undisputed.
OK. I'd say considering "American drug development" is an oddly nationalistic take, which seems unproductive. I agree our experience is discrepant. I don't develop drugs, I develop medical technology.
Also, Jane, I think that both of the sources you've quoted here, who indeed I have not read, are political pundits with a specific ideological axe to grind. I can't possibly address the views of Megan McArdle just because you feel she "is the GOAT". She seems like a libertarian economic journalist.
No one denies there is heavy investment in the global pharma industry. What I'd dispute is how much of that is really going on drug development costs, and how much on the other costs that make these companies so profitable. They don't receive investment to make drugs, they receive investment to turn a profit, and they are well known for the many court settlements they've had to make in the US, EU, UK and elsewhere.
The most profitable drug in the US at the moment is Aripriprazole. That's absurd, and it doesn't suggest high levels of innovation in that sector, which is becoming known for its stagnation actually in terms of really novel developments.
Right, but I'm arguing that the US system is not really optimised for any of those things, the prices are high because drug, equipment and other costs are higher than they need to be. So even though that trade off exists, it's not necessarily causing the problem.
Also please do bear in mind that in the UK we have private healthcare as well as the NHS. I am just about to use it to skip the line for an MRI, if I can persuade my employer to pay which they probably will. So in fact you don't even really need to "pick one".
One reason drug costs are higher in the US is that US prices subsidize research, which European countries then benefit from when they buy US-developed drugs at European capped prices. Again, McArdle writes about this.
I'd argue while this is true, it's important only if you're being quite credulous with respect to what these companies are saying to justify their costs. In other words it doesn't have to be true, and I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for actors outside the US to be objecting to unnecessary costs. I think the issues are well out of scope for a casual discussion.
I don't know her, but Libertarians in general strike me as credulous when it comes to what companies tell them they are doing.
Also there seems to be a somewhat nationalistic flavour to this perspective. In fact not all drug companies are US companies, but they do all behave in a similar way. I would dispute that any of them are particularly innovative at this stage, much of the actual discovery work happens in universities.
I think we're operating with different levels of familiarity with American drug development. If you want to read about company/academic partnerships in research from someone who is very critical of drug companies, check out Vinay Prasad. But the level of company involvement and the high dollar amounts of private investment are undisputed.
OK. I'd say considering "American drug development" is an oddly nationalistic take, which seems unproductive. I agree our experience is discrepant. I don't develop drugs, I develop medical technology.
Also, Jane, I think that both of the sources you've quoted here, who indeed I have not read, are political pundits with a specific ideological axe to grind. I can't possibly address the views of Megan McArdle just because you feel she "is the GOAT". She seems like a libertarian economic journalist.
No one denies there is heavy investment in the global pharma industry. What I'd dispute is how much of that is really going on drug development costs, and how much on the other costs that make these companies so profitable. They don't receive investment to make drugs, they receive investment to turn a profit, and they are well known for the many court settlements they've had to make in the US, EU, UK and elsewhere.
The most profitable drug in the US at the moment is Aripriprazole. That's absurd, and it doesn't suggest high levels of innovation in that sector, which is becoming known for its stagnation actually in terms of really novel developments.