Take the example of a doctor’s appointment. After the appointment, the doctor writes a prescription for you.
The doctor prescribed Humira, an injection used to treat arthritis and psoriasis. Humira is a very popular drug right now. Humira prescriptions generated $14 billion in revenue worldwide in 2015, which is roughly the size of Jamaica’s economy.
Let’s say that you have a doctor’s appointment in England. Humira prescriptions there typically cost $1,362. A Swiss doctor will charge you around $822 for the drug.
The average cost of a Humira prescription in the US, however, is $2,669 on average
Why does this happen? Humira’s price in the US is higher than in other countries. Why is that?
Whatever country Humira is sold in, whether it is Switzerland, the United States, or anywhere else in the world, it is the same medication. In the United States, the regulatory system around the pharmaceutical industry makes Humira different.
Several new prescription drugs enter the US market unregulated and unnegotiated. Pharmaceutical companies will negotiate fair prices with government agencies in other countries. In the majority of cases, these agencies determine whether new drugs are better than their predecessors even before they reach the market. For the purpose of determining drugs’ risks and benefits, reams of data will be analyzed.
All drugs that have been proven safe can be marketed in America, and drugmakers are allowed to set their own prices. One can easily see the problems created by this, such as high copays at pharmacies as well as people who cannot afford life-saving medications. If we lowered drug prices, we would be making a sacrifice. Investors would be less interested in pharmaceuticals if profits fell. In the event of a decrease in drug investments, there would be less research to develop new and innovative therapies.
Craig Garthwaite, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management who studies drug prices, gave me an analogy that helped make this clearer. An investor must choose between investing $10 million in a social media app or finding a cure for pancreatic cancer.
“As you decrease the potential profits I’m going to make from pancreatic cures, I’m going to shift more of my investment over to apps or just keep the money in the bank and earn the money I make there,” Garthwaite suggests
Drug prices in the United States are so high at the moment that investing in pharmaceuticals could generate tons of profits – but most Americans can’t afford them.
An example would be the discovery of a new drug by a pharmaceutical executive. Suppose you wish to introduce it into Australia’s market. Or the Canadian market. Perhaps even the British market.
To begin, it is necessary to arrange meetings with the agencies responsible for making decisions about drug pricing and coverage.
This regulatory agency looks for two things: if the country wants your drug and, if so, how much they are willing to pay. Pricing a drug higher often depends on whether it is an improvement over what is already available.
Let’s say you want to sell your drug in Australia. An application must be submitted to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee if your drug is more effective than what is currently on the market.
In the end, the committee will recommend to the national healthcare system whether or not the drug should be purchased – and if it should be purchased, what price it should be paid by the national health care system.
A majority of the cancer drugs reviewed by Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in the last decade have been rejected because their benefits do not appear to be justified.
If you succeed – and Australia deems your drug worth covering – you will have to determine whether the price offered by the committee is high enough. If so, congratulations! Now you’re on the Australian market.
The price of drugs in other countries is regulated because they see them as public goods.
In countries like Australia, Canada, and Britain, other things consumers buy, like computers or clothing, are not regulated. Still, they have joined dozens of other countries that regulate drug prices to ensure that all citizens have access to affordable medical treatment. In terms of treating medicine, there is a distinct difference since some people simply cannot live without it.
No doubt, the decision has trade-offs. When drugs are not deemed cost-effective, a country like Australia will often refuse to pay for them so that they can make negotiations with drug manufacturers more effective. Regulators need to be able to say no to drugs they do not think are safe and effective. These agencies deny approval to certain drugs sold in the United States – and there are usually protests when they do so.
The fact that there are more drugs on the American market does not mean all patients have access to them. Aaron Kesselheim, Harvard Medical School associate professor, says it is “impossible for patients to receive a full range of products.” “If the drugs are so expensive that you can’t afford them, that’s functionally the same thing as not even having them on the market.”
Even if we are getting better treatment, it doesn’t mean it’s better. A country’s regulatory agency might reject a drug if they do not consider the price it wants to charge justified by its benefits. Our country has access to these drugs – which means we get expensive drugs with limited benefits, but those drugs could be very effective in marketing.
A drug incident involving Zaltrap occurred in 2012. The drug costs about $11,000 a month – twice as much as its competitors – and doctors do not see any additional benefits.
“In most industries, something that offers no advantage of its competitors and yet sells for twice the price would never even get on the market,” Sloan-Kettering oncologist Peter Bach wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. “But that is not how things work for drugs. The Food and Drug Administration approves drugs if they are shown to be ‘safe and effective.’ It does not consider what the relative costs might be.”
Why don’t you regulate drug prices? Check out what the US does.
The United States does not have government panels that negotiate drug prices. Every state has a variety of insurance options. Individual states negotiate the price of drugs with the drug companies. Because health plans in the US are fragmented, they are not as powerful in negotiating discounts.
Australians buy drugs in bulk, just like at Costco, while Americans get tiny bottles from the pharmacy. They pay more than Americans.
“You could say that American health care providers and pharmaceuticals are essentially taking advantage of the American public because they have such a fragmented system,” explains Tom Sackville, president of the International Federation of Health Plans. “The system is so divided, and it’s easy to conquer.”
One of the largest health insurance plans in the United States is Medicare, which covers about 55 million Americans over 65 years of age. The federal government specifically prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices or deciding which drugs it will cover. Medicare covers most drugs that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Medicare has to cover drugs that are not an improvement over current treatments as long as the FDA deems them safe for human consumption.
Medicare will buy drugs as long as they are safe, so long as they are not dangerous. Jamie Love, the director of Knowledge Ecology International and an expert in drug pricing, says “the sky’s the limit” when it comes to Medicare drug prices.
The cost of prescription drugs is one of the largest expenses Americans face
Prescription drugs are responsible for $858 spent per American on this system. Three times more than the Dutch and twice as much as Australians.
American consumers aren’t buying as many drugs as they used to. However, they are buying more of the ones that are available.
Americans don’t take a disproportionate amount of prescription drugs. Non-prescription medications cost less than prescription medications; the only difference is that prescription medications cost more.
There are almost always higher drug prices in the United States than in other countries.
What would happen if the United States regulated drug prices?
Reducing prescription drug expenditures would be one benefit. It might be possible for the United States to secure comparable discounts to European countries if it set up an agency to negotiate drug prices on behalf of its 319 million residents.
There would not be such a rapid increase in health insurance premiums – they may even decrease.
It would be necessary to make trade-offs. The likelihood is that we will have to sacrifice some of the drugs that our insurance plans cover. When deciding what price was appropriate, the board would have to be able to reject drugs that didn’t make the cut.
There is a government agency that negotiates drug prices called the Veteran’s Health Administration. Drug prices are usually 40 per cent lower than Medicare prices with this agency. However, the agency covers fewer items than Medicare.
The New York Times reports that some older veterans enrol in Medicare drug plans in order to cover drugs not covered by the VA. However, VA doctors say patients can still get the medications they need.
Economic research also suggests that price regulation of drugs might lead to a lack of innovation
Investors are motivated by economic incentives. They will devote more money to developing these types of drugs whenever they see a market willing to pay a lot for them.
Think about what a venture capitalist would do when faced with the decision to invest in a biotech company or a social media company.
She will choose the type of business she wants to start according to her interests – and how much profit she expects to make.
Clinical trials will be conducted more frequently when the government mandates the coverage of a new type of medication.
MIT economist Amy Finkelstein is a good example. Medicare’s millions of beneficiaries were offered flu vaccines following the implementation of her study. After the flu vaccine usage was guaranteed to increase, there was a 2.5-fold increase in clinical trials for new flu vaccines.
The number of research dollars dedicated to drugs taken by the elderly increased after Medicare began covering prescription drugs in 2005.
Drug research around the world is subsidized by the United States’ high drug prices today. Those efforts have resulted in the development of better and more effective prescriptions – and so have other countries.
At present, the United States pays quite high prices for drug research in the rest of the world. By not doing that, we would spend fewer dollars on pharmaceutical research, and we would not create new drugs for Americans.
In terms of drug pricing, we are faced with a dilemma: should we trade off some access for some innovation?
Every policy decision comes with trade-offs, including the regulation of drug prices. Regulation of drug prices would reduce the cost of medications in the United States. The result would be more Americans having access to drugs but more restrictions on the research on new drugs.
It is possible that fewer biotech companies will startup or that fewer companies will decide that a new drug is worth launching.
Perhaps we’d all be okay with sacrificing some innovation to make medication more affordable and more accessible to those who need it.
We must ask ourselves a difficult question: Do we want to lower the price of hepatitis C’s cure, which hit the market for $84,000 – knowing that price controls may lead to less investment in other cures in the future?
“If you have hepatitis C today, you probably want to be able to buy the drug at a lower price,” Garthwaite says. “Most people with pancreatic cancer today would like to see more money put into the research and development pipeline to cure the disease.”
Furthermore, he adds, “This isn’t an easy question to answer: how much innovation we’re comfortable paying for – or the idea that we might be spending too much on innovation.”
In light of America’s extraordinarily high drug prices and one in four Americans reporting trouble paying for their prescriptions, we need to have this conversation.
Do you agree that we should pay higher drug prices to promote more innovation? Is it reasonable to make our drugs more accessible to people of all income levels if we give up some of that innovation?