This is the opposite of what is intended: drugs like Ozempic should mean we can gorge ourselves on fats, salt, corn syrup etc. with abandon thereby boosting sales and profitability for these manufacturers.
Oh yes, let's "Impose price controls" to ensure no company ever risks billions on developing breakthrough drugs again. The Clown who wrote this has made her Marxist professors proud.
Price controls don't have to be broad based or marker destroying. Essentially every country outside the US has strong negotiating power with pharma and that's a free market mechanism. Price control for vulnerable populations wouldn't reduce market incentives for the bulk of GLP-1 sales and future development.
Essentially all risk taking Pharmeceutical innovation is the result of the US market. The other markets you present as "strong" are in the position to simply deny their populations access to certain medications, and they do, outcomes be damned. So the US pays the research and development freight, and other markets are gravy. Hundreds of billions of private dollars risked on finding blockbuster drugs has been sent down the drain, as risk taking for such incredible innovation requires. To diminish the rewards will diminish the willingness of investors to engage in such risk taking. The model we have isn't perfect, but it's very good. Drug company gets a short window within which to generously profit from their successes, and then it becomes an inexpensive generic anyone can make, and all of humanity benefits from then on. You want to upend that and cap the rewards while leaving risk in the hands of private business.
Capping prices doesn't impact availability? Following the recently imposed price controls on insulin, Eli Lilly pulled out of the already shrinking pool of insulin makers, strangling the supply even further, and once again the public suffers while the Marxist market makers never seem to feel the pain of their "utopian" principles.
We probably agree more than you think. If you read the moonshot article, we are advocating for more money to pharma in the form of incentives to develop non-addictive painkillers and addiction therapies. I don't think that affordable access programs distort incentives in a way that would slow down GLP-1 therapy development-- the market is absolutely massive.
This is the opposite of what is intended: drugs like Ozempic should mean we can gorge ourselves on fats, salt, corn syrup etc. with abandon thereby boosting sales and profitability for these manufacturers.
They take away appetite, though.
Oh yes, let's "Impose price controls" to ensure no company ever risks billions on developing breakthrough drugs again. The Clown who wrote this has made her Marxist professors proud.
Price controls don't have to be broad based or marker destroying. Essentially every country outside the US has strong negotiating power with pharma and that's a free market mechanism. Price control for vulnerable populations wouldn't reduce market incentives for the bulk of GLP-1 sales and future development.
Essentially all risk taking Pharmeceutical innovation is the result of the US market. The other markets you present as "strong" are in the position to simply deny their populations access to certain medications, and they do, outcomes be damned. So the US pays the research and development freight, and other markets are gravy. Hundreds of billions of private dollars risked on finding blockbuster drugs has been sent down the drain, as risk taking for such incredible innovation requires. To diminish the rewards will diminish the willingness of investors to engage in such risk taking. The model we have isn't perfect, but it's very good. Drug company gets a short window within which to generously profit from their successes, and then it becomes an inexpensive generic anyone can make, and all of humanity benefits from then on. You want to upend that and cap the rewards while leaving risk in the hands of private business.
Capping prices doesn't impact availability? Following the recently imposed price controls on insulin, Eli Lilly pulled out of the already shrinking pool of insulin makers, strangling the supply even further, and once again the public suffers while the Marxist market makers never seem to feel the pain of their "utopian" principles.
We probably agree more than you think. If you read the moonshot article, we are advocating for more money to pharma in the form of incentives to develop non-addictive painkillers and addiction therapies. I don't think that affordable access programs distort incentives in a way that would slow down GLP-1 therapy development-- the market is absolutely massive.