Nowadays it seems like legal drugs are more expensive than illegal ones. This dilemma occurs because the pharmaceutical industry affects the economy significantly. Although the United States is a mixed market economy, there are instances where the economy seems like a free market economy. A free market economy allows companies to determine the prices of goods free from government intervention. The pharmaceutical industry, despite several regulations set by the food and drug administration, is a free market economy. Meaning, the pharmaceutical sector lacks government regulation and has control over the prices of specialty drugs desperately needed by the public. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry being a free market negatively affects the …show more content…
A free market system only hurts the economy, which is why the U.S is a mixed market economy. A mixed market economy is beneficial to consumers due to the fact there is government regulatory oversight of goods, and there is competition for goods. This type of economy means that companies cannot become monopolies and control prices of certain goods. However, this is not the case for pharmaceutical industries because there is little to none government intervention occurring. The lack of government oversight means that pharmacies that only develop specialized medicines have complete control of the price due to the fact they are the only ones able to reproduce the product. An example of this is the Daraprim Scandal. Andrew Pollack, a journalist who has covered the Daraprim Scandal, talks about how the Turing Pharmaceuticals has changed the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 (Pollack para 2). This price change shows how the government has no control over the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, Martin Shkreli, the chief executive, …show more content…
According to Paul Antony, DTCA aids consumers because it helps them recognize symptoms and their increases communication between doctors and patients. He states that consumers that advertisements empower them to seek out their doctor (para 3,10). However, advertisements are often emotional and misleading. This type of advertisements causes patients to urge their doctors to prescribe them a specialty drug because they notice they have a symptom. Doctors then would have to comply which can end up being more harmful to the patient. Another argument is that pharmaceuticals make little profit because new drugs cost so much to develop. Derek Lowe, a chemist, states that "Expenses [are] doing nothing but rising, and the success rate for drug discovery [is] going in the other direction" (para 5). By his quote, Lowe means that the development of a drug outweighs the cost of the drug, resulting in little profit. However, this case is on drugs that failed in the market. Drugs that are long past development have the prices gouged for more profit. Therefore the government should regulate the pharmaceutical industry because the industry is harmful towards the economy and patients. The government can achieve this by enabling a cap on prices of specialty drugs and ensuring DCTA is not
The outcome of attempting this would make it even simpler to gain a profit in the drug industry. In the author’s opinion, if the process to acquire drugs becomes simpler, then the number of individuals
This leads to consumers looking for cheaper substitutes for the product from other companies. Not only that, but with no competition, the value may go down if the prices are too high or too low. The consumer may not have the resources to purchase any other brand of the same product, but is forced to only purchase from the first company it came from. When the prices of oil go sky high, those who live in poverty may have to use every dime, nickle and penny that they have just so they can have the oil they need. It gives those who are struggling more pressure and tribulation.
Many believe that the FDA has financial reasons for allowing a drug to be on the market. In 2006, a study found that” in 22% of advisory board meetings, more than half the members had direct financial in the companies whose medial products they evaluated or their rivals”. The FDA’s advisory boards should not be able to vote on companies that they have financial ties to. The FDA says they do the best they can to create an unbiased board, but it is difficult to find “top medical experts with no ties” to pharmaceutical companies. Since a number of people have complained about this, Congress decided to make the FDA cut twenty-five percent of the advisory board that has financial ties with the pharmaceutical company being evaluated over the next five years.
A Columbia University for Writing alum, Brad Tuttle in his article, 21 Incredibly Disturbing Facts About High Prescription Drug Prices published on Time.com addresses the topic of high drug prices and implies that drugs are very overpriced. He supports this claim by stating that, “The price of the life-saving drug Daraprim was jacked up 5,000% overnight last fall by the company that purchased it, Turing Pharmaceuticals, and its hated CEO Martin Shkreli” (Tuttle), then that the prices of “Epi Pens have increased 450% since 2007” (Tuttle). Tuttle’s purpose is to urge the drug companies to lower prices to life-saving drugs in order to make cancer and other diseases more affordable. He adopts a judgmental tone for his audience, the readers of Time
For example, agencies have been established with the sole intent to manage drug use and distribution and technology has been exclusively developed to detect the presence of drugs. Yet, evidence has indicated that such exhaustive efforts have been relatively unsuccessful. First, it has been assumed that drugs have perpetuated violence in society and based on this rationale, it was believed that by the suppressing the pervasiveness of drugs that incidents of violence would simultaneously diminish. However, reality has failed to align with the expectations that had initially been anticipated. Research findings have suggested that the decriminalization of drugs would result in a less adversarial drug market in which conflicts have tended to arise among dealers as well as between dealers and buyers (Common Sense for Drug Policy, 2007, p. 21).
Rebecca Watson, the speaker, made it clear her purpose was to inform you that while Martin Shkrelli had a huge role in the raising of Daraphim prices, he was not the only one to blame. She blames the entire pharmaceutical community for making it harder for people to access the medicine they need by constantly changing the prices. Watson builds upon her purpose by pulling out more opinions such as: “Homeopathy is bullshit and many chiropractors are dangerous quacks (Watson).” These opinions allows the reader to fully believe she is dislikes and puts blame on the pharmaceutical industry and the people within it. She specifically points out chiropractors which indicates there might have been an issue with one previously that allowed her to draw this conclusion.
Drugs are the dangerous substances that will destroy the consumer both physically and mentally; therefore, it is necessary to determine these substances restrictively. In order to do that, I am strongly assuring that the drugs should be legalized. There are three main reasons why the drugs should be legalized: diminution of crime rates, health guarantee, and extending of drugs regulation. Drugs are one of the crime sources, although not by the drugs, itself, but the condition. Illegal drugs are rare products that could not be found in the normal market, the cost for its rarity is totally expensive.
If there was an open market for drugs and Americans’ were educated on the effects drugs can have on their bodies, the monopoly for drugs would rapidly decrease. Drugs are outlawed in America yet prohibition has never been successful in America. Anytime the government has tried to stop the distribution of a substance people have always jumped at the chance to make
As one of the fastest-growing components in the US health care market, prescription drugs command much attention. Spending on prescription drugs exceeded $150 billion in 2001, which is almost twice $79 billion spent in 1997 (National Institute for Health Care Management, 2002). In 2001, the industry spent more than $19.1 billion in promotional activities. The spending for direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising increased from $1.1 billion in 1997 to about $2.7 billion in 2001, which is as dramatic as the increase in drug companies’ spending on research and development (R&D), from $19 billion to $30.3 billion (US General Accounting Office, 2002).
Every citizen in the United States has individual rights protected by the Constitution. This protection also includes businesses that have gone through the legal process to become a legal entity ; more commonly known as becoming a corporation. Many times these individual rights, protected by the Constitution, conflict with the common good and as history shows, the courts consistently side with the common good when faced with a case that pits these two against each other. Big Pharma are corporations exercising their individual rights to market, and sell their product to consumers. In the process, the common good is suffering.
Without competition companies and businesses could basically do anything they wanted to. Historically it has be proven that competition keeps prices down, because businesses have to compete to make sure their prices are lower than the others. Monopolies used to be a huge thing in the United States before presidents started taking action
Elizabeth thanks for your post, I appreciate your candor and you do raise several great points regarding the advantages and disadvantage of pharmaceutical and medical supply companies. Although these companies market directly to the consumer, in the theory, they are helping to enlighten the public about the world of new or old medicines, and provide an argument as to why these new products are good for them. Even if it helps the public to be informed of new medications or new equipment being used to help their disease processes. Does it benefit all parties in the long run?
The goal is to make a lifechanging medication at an affordable price. Also, owning a lot of patents under their name has helped them earn a lot of profits. The Merck company has succeeded in differentiating itself as cost leadership
Many new companies to enter the market without burden of costly tasks such as research and development, clinical trials and manufacturing of drugs. Moreover, patent expiry is one of the reasons which is offering opportunities for lower cost generic manufacturer in terms of greater market access. Additionally, the government has increased their focus on healthcare cost cutting. It is creating pressure on the authority to allow early introduction of low-cost drugs in the
blah states “Increased competition is proven to result in lower prices, which in turn contribute to improved access to medicines”, it was the Developed Nations which benefited from the profit gained from using the resources of the developing nations. Prohibitive drug prices are often the result of strong intellectual property protection. It is therefore unsurprising that places like the United Nations, Japan, China and a few in Western Europe, have fought for stronger control and higher levels of property rights laws. These nations argue for strong global protection, as they have