Is it fair to drug companies to cut the price of insulin?

[msc545]

Starting in 2023, the Inflation Reduction Act will cap the cost of insulin for Medicare beneficiaries at $35 per month and will include those who use insulin pumps.

Cutting the price is unfair to big drug companies!

It's fair - drug companies are literally killing people with their pricing!

[burlen]

The issue of the cost of insulin and whether it is fair to drug companies to cut the price is a complex and controversial one. There are several arguments on both sides of the issue:

Arguments in favor of cutting the price of insulin

Affordability: Insulin is a life-sustaining medication for many people with diabetes, and high prices can make it difficult or even impossible for some to access the treatment they need. Cutting the price of insulin could make it more affordable and accessible for those in need.

Profitability: The pharmaceutical industry is highly profitable, and drug companies are often accused of putting profits before people by charging high prices for essential medications like insulin.

Research and development: Critics argue that high insulin prices do not reflect the cost of research and development, as insulin has been in use for nearly a century and the cost of production has decreased over time.

Arguments against cutting the price of insulin

Investment: Drug companies argue that high prices are necessary to fund the research and development of new and improved medications, and that cutting the price of insulin would harm their ability to invest in future innovations.

Market forces: Proponents of free-market economics argue that the high cost of insulin is a result of supply and demand, and that cutting the price would interfere with market forces.

Unintended consequences: Some argue that cutting the price of insulin could have unintended consequences, such as reducing the quality of care for those with diabetes or reducing access to other necessary treatments.

The issue of the cost of insulin and whether it is fair to drug companies to cut the price is a complex and multifaceted one, and different people may hold different opinions on the matter based on their own experiences, values, and beliefs.

[msc545]

Why didn't you have ChatGTP submit this?

[Tekkasonic]

Great breakdown, I'm in the middle. I do think that people think healthcare is a right. it's not. access to healthcare is in most places a right, meaning you can try to find healthcare and not be blocked by law. If there is no doctor and/or medicine to give you that healthcare, you don't get healthcare. Unless you think healthcare is a right, then what are we going to do, force people who don't want to be doctors be doctors.. yeaaaaa... I think that's illegal now.

[msc545]

@Tekkasonic That answer up above was created by the Chatgtp AI from openai. com

[RavVid]

Insulin is essential to diabetics. It therefore needs to be easily available.

Whether putting cost controls in place is a good way of doing that is debatable.

For myself I like our Australian way. In effect our gov't puts supplying insulin to tender for the whole country. Lowest tenderer will get the gig so there is a lot of market force to lower costs. Diabetics get insulin for free plus the paraphernalia.

Diabetes is an easily managed disease but it has enormous consequences if it is not managed well. From a societal view there is a high cost at not having people economically productive and an even higher cost with consequences such as amputations etc that can result.

Any Australian can get an insulin pump if they want one and can fairly much get continuous glucose monitoring for no or little cost. That kit is magnificent by the way - a diabetic friend is now flat-lining at normal. It is almost as good as a functioning pancreas.

Individually none of us have negotiating powers with big pharma. I think this tendering approach is better for individuals and companies. A mandated price will leave a lot of fat with the most efficient producers and bust the least efficient. I'd expect a mandated price to be set around what will keep the least efficient in business (I'm cynical but it usually works like that).

Just wanted to put that model up. I don't know your politics and your politics are up to you guys.

[Alessa13]

Are they leaving enough profit that drug companies will still want to make it? Or will they cut back on production to focus on other products that have higher profit margins?

Unintended side effects may happen.

I already know of people that ran into issues a few months ago with a different diabetic medicine (a pill for type 2) that was months behind on manufacture production because the company was making other stuff in high demand that had a higher profit margin.

It was a nightmare for them, getting their doctor to try prescribing something else that was more expensive and then having health insurance say it is a new drug so we won't treat it like a maintenance drug until after 90 days and even the health insurance company telling people if you want to save money do the cheaper alterntive that was back ordered.

It was a mess.

[msc545]

They will continue to make it since it costs very little to manufacture. I don't give a damn about their profits.

[Alessa13]

All I was saying was anti-freedom anti-captislistic policies have unintended side effects, they will of course continue to make money but if they can make more another way they may reduce production there to transfer resources to make other items.

They should instead being finding ways to lower prices through the free market. Unless you do not believe in the free market. Perhaps break up monopolies if needed.

Maybe you would prefer it if the government took over manufacturing and paid royalties to the original companies. Then they sell it at cost with no mark up.

[msc545]

A government takeover would be most welcome in this case. Psychopaths should not be allowed to run rug companies.

[Alessa13]

I can somewhat agree on that, but not just drug prices, the entire health field. Government set pricing for doctors and hospitals on what they can charge, for therapist and any kind of doctor in the healthcare field, mental health or otherwise.

Seems fair as many of those make a ton of money too and hurt people by charging so much.

[msc545]

We are not paid what we are actually worth, considering we save your life.

[Alessa13]

Who is we? I was not talking about a person simply why stop with price controls on drugs, lets make the whole healthcare field more affordable. Price controls on medical professionals would go hand and hand with them on drugs. No reason talking to a doctor should cost $150 dollars, lets cap it to $35 as well, per visit. If all they do is talk, if they do tests then each test has a cost that is capped too.

[msc545]

If you do that, nobody will bother becoming a medical professional. Do you have any idea how much it costs and how long it takes?

[Alessa13]

Yes, I have considered it... but you just proved my point. If profits are too low, no one will want to become something or manufacture something.

I would not expect medical professionals to not be paid for their time, but if a cost of how much say a simple doctors office visit actually costs and the mark up... then capping that. Probably not $35 dollars but right now around here it is a $180 without insurance for a visit of 10 minutes, for a family practice doctor. That is a pay of over a thousand dollars an hour for ONE patient.

It should be reduced down to say $50 dollars a visit, they would still make a lot of money, maybe not enough.

After all drugs may literally be keeping people alive, per your logic so it should be affordable. Doctors are literally keeping everyone alive, should they also not be affordable?

This is all according to your logic, not mine.

[SecretsofKB]

It's absolutely unfair to keep the price of insulin, a substance which literally keeps people alive, high...

These companies are just being greedy...

[AMS700CX4u2]

I have been diabetic since 1964. I was on the Lente U-80 when I was diagnosed. In 1968 a bottle of Lente U-80 cost $2.12. Check me to see if I am right but I think the minimum wage was about 0.75 an hour. Ii know that pancreai were obtained from packing houses and were kept under less than sterile conditions. They were taken back to Lilly to have the insulin extracted, and for Lente, the insulin extracted had to be precipitated with zinc. That required some man hours. Yet it only required about three hours of minimum wage labor to purchase. The process has changed as of 1985 or so. Eschericia coli has been genetically modified to produce human insulin as a by product. I am sure that the process has been streamlined to eliminate as many humans as possible. The most I have been personally charge for a bottle of insulin occurred during the short time I was on MassHealth. 2010 the year a lot of seniors were separated from Employment I was in the GAP nearing November. The charges were $293.00 per bottle. That is no where near 3 hours of minimum wage labor. I went begging the Local Endocrinologist in Fall River. They provided for me with a free bottle. We have to remember that the difference was a non-profit world versus a for profit world. Between 1968 and 2010 most things had gone up ten fold. the price of insulin had gone up way more that that. Ten times $2.12 is nearer $21.20 than $293.00

[WindAtMyBack]

I haven't checked this out, but that statement is pretty vague. The way I read it is the cost to the customer is capped.

The way government insurance works, and all other insurance that I'm aware of works, is they have listed prices for literally everything. That includes the out-of-pocket expense, and the price the insurance will pay.

I don't call that a cap. Its no different than me going to the grocery store and saying I will pay up to $2.50 for a gallon of milk, but not more than that.

[msc545]

The government, not the insurer, capped the price at $ 35 for medicare recipients.

[WindAtMyBack]

That sounds to me like the co-payment, or out of pocket. All insurance does that whether it's government or private insurance.

[msc545]

It is not a co-payment, it is a PRICE cap. It applies whether or not a person has insurance.

[WindAtMyBack]

It applies to everyone? You said it was for Medicare recipients.

[msc545]

My error. Just medicare recipients for now.

[lightbulb27]

I wish it capped the spending of the govt, that's where the inflation originates.

Yes because this is essential for life and they are killing off their market. I guess they have to manage it like electric companies, eventhough it's social control.

But it's price controls... careful.

The downside is... where's the incentive to lower prices, create more production? The govt is the one raising the costs of manufacturing.

[exitseven]

When you produce something that costs 12 bucks to make and charge 350 dollars for it there is a problem with that. There should be a revue of drug prices on an annual basis. The cost to make must be disclosed to both Medicare and private insurance companies

[Alessa13]

Are you against the free market?

[exitseven]

@Alessa13 no, but there needs to be transparency so people know that they are getting ripped off.

[Alessa13]

I can get on board with that, here is what it costs to make, here is what we are selling but not price controls, that didn't go well in Venezula.

I wish they did that in the hospital too, rather than it appearing they are charging 50 dollars for giving you tylenol pill. Itemize billing would be great.

[Jersey2]

I am a hardcore Republican but this is fair. It’s price gouging by rich lazy executives who haven’t contributed to science themselves. The free market should work but not with these a-holes.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why haven't we eliminated all type 2 diabetes which is diet and lifestyle induced.

[lightbulb27]

type 1 be the issue...

[msc545]

It is also genetically caused and mediated

[lightbulb27]

genetic... or bacterialogical/dietary intake triggering genetics? I've heard too muchabout how genes aren't "fixed", but not enough to know what causes. I didn't think that was known.

[msc545]

Genetic. Bad diet just makes it worse once you have it.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

It's fair - drug companies are literally killing people with their pricing!

[gorydetails]

The government could solve this problem by allowing people to import medicines from other countries. Until they do that, they can shut the fuck up.

[msc545]

Actually, insulin is liquid and injectable and probably could not be safely shipped. Other than that you are not wrong.

[gorydetails]

You can get perishable food send to you via mail.

[msc545]

Yes, you can. Those are different from Insulin in many ways besides taste.

[msc545]

Go look up the chemical characteristics yourself. I am not your research assistant.

[Iron_Man]

Are you kidding me? They’re making a killing here in this country.

[WellGreetingsISay]

Don't worry, they'll still make a lot of money.

[Alessa13]

Will it be enough though, or will drug companies switch to producing other drugs that have higher profit margins?

Businesses always do what is best for the bottom line, if they can change some plants over to something with a higher profit margin, that reduces production of insulin. Still gets produced but might be occasionally out of stock and back ordered.

That happened last fall with some other diabetic medications (not insulin) for a couple of months. The one pill was manufactured back ordered because the plants were making other more profitible things and once they had a good supply of that, went back to the cheaper diabetic pills to catch up on.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Should be free.

[Guardian45]

Besides insulin is NOT proprietary!