Edwards To PhRMA: Cash On The Barrelhead
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // June 15th, 2007 // 8:23 am
The Senator from North Carolina is proposing a fix to the health care system. One idea is to offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs.
Edwards believes that offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices. His campaign officials fine-tuned that message by stressing that the payments could be voluntary for drugmakers and would be aimed at spurring the development of drugs that cure diseases.
“Dealing with the health care crisis is about more than just about coverage,” the Associated Press reports him saying. “Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end.”
Should the drugmakers have waited to release the SEAS results?
- No (73%, 82 Votes)
- Yes (27%, 31 Votes)
Total Voters: 113
Loading ...
JS
What an idiot
Lisa Van Syckel
JS,
Why do you believe Edwards is an idiot?
jason
Did Edwards mention anything about tort reform? I believe that has caused the cost of health care to go up as well, correct? Where did some of that money end up………. I can’t remember, can someone help me.
I know big pharma is an easy target, especially in an election year - but this is getting desperate! It is a horrible subject to bring up right now, but would he rather his wife was treated for cancer in Canada and only with generic chemo agents? When it hits home, you realize we do have the best system with the best meds and technology if you can afford it. It certainly isn’t a perfect system, but I haven’t seen the perfect model yet.
Lisa Van Syckel
Jason,
It appears that you have lost your English (Brittish) accent…
With Tort reform,we can look forward to seeing more dangerous Pintos on the road….
And more off-label Paxil for kids…
If Pharma truly cared..There would be a “cure” for Mrs. Edwards’s cancer..Just a thought!
jason
You don’t think a cure for cancer might be profitable? I am willing to guess you could price it fairly high and maybe even make some $$$$. You don’t think that there are academic institutions that are looking for a cure for cancer - You don’t blame them, just big pharma?
Pharma, like all business, is there to make money. As long as you have share holders you have to represent their interest and that is making money.
I will give you that like everything, there are pros and cons. For instance, you mention pinto’s - which is good. But if people knew they blew up, wouldn’t they stop buying them and that would get them off the marker anyway? But type in “Avandia” into google and tell me how many offers for representation you get.
I am not saying all lawyers are bad and do unethical things. But when you look at the results of some large class action lawsuits and see that the attorneys kept millions of dollars.
In Washington DC there is a lawsuit going on right now for $50 million over a lost pair of pants. http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3269485&page=1
Lisa Van Syckel
Lawsuit over lost pants..who could have missed it,it was all over the news.I call it frivilous,and surely, not news worthy!!
The Plaintiff is a Republican Judge, isnt he.
This may surprise you,but,I dont believe in Class Action Lawsuits!!!…
And I am sure academic institutions would gladly accept Pharma dollars for more much needed research..
Dr. Remulac
Developing and marketing pharmaceuticals is a business like any other, and governed by principles of economics. Nearly 100% of pharma companies with marketed drugs are publicly held, and have a responsibility to their employees and shareholders to maximize value. If there are no profits, there is no money to invest in new drug development or improvement.
What Edwards is proposing is extremely dangerous. It totally undermines our capitalist system, and would do nothing except stifle innovation. This is what happens in socialist countries, and they DO NOT develop anything for the improvement of human health.
On the other hand, I agree with previous posts that pharma companies cannot gouge the public, rather they should be able to recuperate their development costs and be able to generate reasonable returns on their investment as publicly held companies. They can and should price their drugs according to economic principles and what the market will bear. At the same time, they must be able to demonstrate “value” data on their products - that is, whatever is paid for the drug must translate into measurable and meaningful gains in health or generate cost savings in other aspects of healthcare/productivity. In doing so, they MUST market their drugs in full accordance with all laws, regulations, statutes, and guidelines. Anything short of that is unethical and criminal.
Professional Guest
You cannot stifle innovation that isn’t happening.
I don’t agree with Edwards’ proposal, in total and in fact think he is a terrible candidate for President. But what if cash was available for niche players to develop compounds like dichloroacetate?
Broad reform of the type Edwards has suggested won’t work. But his idea is more innovative than what the drug industry is bringing to Americans at present.