Why would companies innovate when they can meet investor expectations by increasing the price of old drugs?
This pathway slows the number of innovative drugs are launched. Stopping this practice will lead to more innovation not less.
Happens with old drugs. Lifesaving drugs. From insulin and beyond. #Insulin4all
Happens with new targeted therapies.
So do I think there is a risk to true innovative drugs if Medicare negotiates and if price increases above inflation are capped? No
There will be more reward for better drugs. There will be more truly innovative drugs.
I will tell what we can do to help companies truly innovate: totally reform the regulatory process.
The FDA process and requirements have gotten ridiculously complex and demanding and contribute to high and rising cost of getting drugs approved.
A lot of stuff required give an aura of perfection and precision but accomplish nothing more than that. An aura.
So a randomized trial that can and should cost tens of millions costs hundreds of millions. Change that.
Second, reform the patent system for heaven's sake. You cannot allow patent life to be prolonged on an on with new and additional patents on the same drug. Laws have to be changed.
This is not a more fancy insulin in the US. It's the same kind of insulin that's sold in other countries for much less, even by the same companies. @TheEconomist
If you want to know how on earth is this possible please watch my presentation here.
Bob Kyle described monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) in 1978. He wrote an update with 40 years follow up in @NEJM in 2018. Legend.
~5% of people age 50+ have MGUS. The main risk with MGUS is progression to myeloma at a rate of 1% per year. #MedTwitter
Some who don't know the history mistakenly state that the term MGUS was given because he didn't know it's significance. He very well did
He knew 1% with MGUS progress each year to myeloma. He called it MGUS coz prior to that the condition was called benign monoclonal gammopathy.
He chose MGUS because when you see the patient there was no way to predict whether the condition was truly benign or progress to myeloma. The word significance was specifically to state the uncertainty in a given patient whether malignant progression would occur or not.
When it comes to the truth about prescription drug pricing always follow the money.
People who benefit from the current system will of course oppose any change. You will hear a lot of catch phrases and economic theories. Don't fall for it.
If you want to know how broken the system is see this thread.
Why should Medicare negotiate prescription drugs prices?
1/ In 2003, we passed a law that Medicare must cover prescription drugs (Part D). This was good. We simultaneously BANNED them from negotiating the price of the drugs. This was insane— it was a bad provision to start with.
2/ In a monopoly, even water will be expensive.
We cannot grant monopoly protection to Pharma, force Medicare to buy their monopoly product, and simultaneously ban price negotiation.
You are basically inviting Pharma to set high prices. It's a giveaway.
3/ Every other developed country recognizes that if you grant monopoly protection to Pharma product for many years and prevent competition, then you have the right to negotiate a fair price in return.
We are the outlier. We pay more for the same drugs— whatever Pharma wants.