ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2019
- How an EpiPen can cost $300 in the US and $38 in the UK.
This video is presented by CuriosityStream: www.curiositystream.com/Vox
Become a Video Lab member! bit.ly/video-lab
Prescription drugs cost more in the United States than anywhere else in the world. One big reason why is America’s particular system for how drugs get to patients, which is unlike almost any other country’s. But it’s also because the American prescription drug market is so profitable that the money it generates powers the entire global pharmaceutical industry.
Check out our other video, on how Americans got stuck with endless drug advertisements: • How Americans got stuc...
Check out more of Sarah Kliff’s reporting:
www.vox.com/science-and-healt...
And the Commonwealth Fund’s research on US drug prices: www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
![How I See the US After Living Abroad for 15 Years [CULTURE SHOCK]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DO5x_tJBn7w/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi everyone, we accidentally made this video public around 9pm ET last evening, and had to take it down. We're releasing it now as a new video, sorry for the confusion and to anyone who may have gotten a notification last night for a video that they were unable to watch!
hi vox!!!
@@karlsmoothiejespersen937 hello!
I love Vox !!!
Lol I was so confused yesterday
@@irenemay0 sorry 😩
Im sure publicly traded pharma companies lobbying and dirty politicians have nothing to do with it. Rolls eyes
What a load of bollocks ... the US is funding pharma for the rest of the world ... garbage
@@hanhong2267
It refers to the Jew question conspiracy where there are ton of people saying how there are a lot of jewish people in positions of power. And many seem to systematically push in favour of things like more money to israel and stuff that makes them more profit.
IMO the conspiracy feels a little far fetched. Its moreso because of nepotism and familian wealth being gathered after many jewish people fled to america. Since they were educated/(valued education) they ended up as successful careers as doctors/lawyers etc. This ended up leading to the stats that peter mentions where 56% of the megadonors are jewish. And a lobbying group called AIPAC making the USA give welfare payments to israel.
Many white supremacists use it as a dog whistle.
(i used it as a joke in my reply to peter jones)
@@hashemmatter5389 Right? The US is doing much more than just pharma. Most of the countries in Europe have citizens that have helped their own countries less than America has helped them. It's sad, but it's 100% true. (goes to press reply, that'll translate to thousands of American pioneered technologies coming together for you to receive this message.)
@@peterjones8087 Hey dude, i agree there is a problem. I just wanted to give an "unbiased" explanation. I think there are a lot of Jews in positions of power. And there are a few influential Jewish people pushing for stuff like Israel welfare state anti critiquing of Jewish people in florida etc .
The place where i draw the line is when people generalise to all Jews and that kinda stuff. Shooting up a local synagogue like what happened last week is clearly a result of indoctrination too far and only further strengthens people thinking that we are being anti semetic. Rather than actually helping them to acknowledge there is clearly pay to play corruption as a result of these clearly biased laws.
Han Hong As you can see by the dogwhistle responses you got, using multiple parentheses around a person or entity's name is often used by white supremacists to refer to Jewish people or the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish people secretly run the govt/media/banks etc.
White nationalists' new strategy is plausible deniability in order to be more palatable and easier to slip into the mainstream (much like Richard Spencer attempting to look squeaky clean and reputable for media coverage), so they use signaling similar to this to be more subtle.
You seriously gonna end the video saying the whole world is making drugs expensive for Americans? Really Vox???!
The video shows that the USA uses a different system from the rest of the world,. The conclusion is that the world is at fault for such system performing worse economically for the customers?
Did they also hint that without the USA paying more, drugs wouldn't be developed at the same rate anymore?
Remarkable.
Well , at least through Medicare , your congressman voted to prevent Medicare to negotiate bulk pricing. The VA Administration does not have such holdbacks and pay as much as half what Medicare can purchase for.
And yes, large Governmental buyers overseas have more leverage than the US Government. And when US drug manufacturers do no play ball , the rest of the World goes to India, the European Unit for a batch of generic versions.
Americans could get their drugs for less , and for that to happen they need to form Coop Buying Groups , which in a way circumvents the power of Drug manufactures do have.
Compound pharmacies are scantly available in the US ( in the greater São Paulo, Brazil , we have more compound pharmacies then Yanks have Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts outlets ). The Drugstore chains are reduced to a mere half dozen names. And the type of molecular drugs you can’t manufacture in a traditional chemical set , well , the amount of R&D and CAPEX spending makes it very prohibitive to any small company.
American Prescription Drug exporters have to concede lower prices to foreign buyers or else these buyers won’t take bulk orders.
Not long ago, Canadian Mail Order Drugstores used to make a pretty penny of American Prescription Drug Buyers and they all got shutdown. Guess who was behind such shutdowns.
And last but not least , Drug Manufacturers charge more in the US as there is a perception Americans have on average larger disposable incomes. That may not be true anymore , yet the perception persists.
watch the video again, they literally talked about this point for the last minute of the video yet you only choose the last sentence for your point. Typical.
@@benrodir2 that's because that's how she chose to summarise it!!! Americans pay more for drugs due to greedy capitalism, they all need to distribute and find customers themselves, pay lots of salesmen, buy lots of ads, schmooze lots of doctors to push their drugs, pay for excess stock that might expire and then get to charge the end customer for that and more,
other countries pay less because we agree to bulk buy an amount ahead of production, very few middle men, the drug companies can just focus on producing what's been asked for and don't have to stock a tonne of excess.
A lot of medical research is actually done by governments, paid for by governments then passed off for nothing for pharma to sell back to you and rake in the profits!
Of course it is! Because the US is the center of the world and everything spins around it, duh
Acctually an EpiPen is only £8 in England, free in Scoland, Wales and NI.
And free UK wide if you...
are 60 or over
are under 16
are 16 to 18 and in full-time education
are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have a valid maternity exemption certificate (MatEx)
have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical exemption certificate (MedEx)
have a continuing physical disability that prevents you going out without help from another person and have a valid MedEx
hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription is for your accepted disability
are an NHS inpatient
You also get free prescriptions if you're receiving any form of income benefits including JSA low income support and universal credit (if claiming below £450)
I'd assume they've calculated the direct cost to the NHS, rather than cost to us
Free? Why do I pay taxes for?
Try Hong Kong: HK$60 (£6), anything prescribed by the doctor is covered. Taxes? One might ask. Look at our tax rate. And no, there is no mandatory insurance, and we have a budget surplus. Just own your mistakes Americans...
Deep Space, Hong Kong has the population of a city and has MUCH more strict immigration than the US. The US is 50 times larger and grants citizenship to anyone born here. Oranges and apples my friend.
Wow somehow the Americans found a way to blame this on everyone else🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️
Like they always do.
@@Renzo_Martinez Yep.
Not all of us. Pharmaceutical companies donate to political campaigns in the US so our politicians do everything they can to protect their donors profits. Some of us understand the blame for our drug prices falls entirely with us and our elected representatives
Waiting for Vox to blamed the world for all the world's problems too.
Well is she wrong?
Why no comment on Australia? Australia has a hybrid system, so standard system is the same as the UK, BUT if it passes the safety stage, but the "worthwhile" stage is assessed as no, then it's available as what's called a "private prescription", where you pay the full cost, but you can still choose to buy it.
That full cost is STILL lower than the US too! For example, if you don't have an anaphylaxis diagnoses but want to buy an epi-pen (common for daycare centres, schools etc to do), then you pay $100, instead of the standard $39.30 (or $5.50 for pensioners), so still much cheaper than the US, even when we're paying the "full cost". I don't know who negotiates that down/why that is, many private insurers here do cover the costs of private prescriptions, so maybe they have negotiated it?
Whatever the case, it should be possible for all countries to be doing the hybrid system for safe drugs.
Like Israel
I now understand why my cat's insulin pen is costs way more than my grandfather's, so thanks!
It's just a guess, because I don't know the system or the drugs, but I think maybe it's because the drugs sold at full price may compete with the negotiated ones. So, they would have to lower their prices to be able to compete.
Finally my Kangaroo can get the medicine he needs.
The UK is the same in that respect.
No way do we block all access to a drug if it's been deemed safe because it's expensive - private healthcare exists in this country too, although it's obviously much smaller than in almost any other country.
Take Orkambi, for example. It's licensed for use in the UK and you can pay the extremely high price privately, but you can't get it free offered by the government, that's what caused the uproar.
But the whole point is that very few would ever have to go to the private market, and even fewer would ever be able to afford to (remember, only the most unaffordable drugs are excluded from being offered for free anyway).
No mention of raising the prices of old medications just because they can?
Was this video sponsored?
Did you not see the outro?
The only reason they can is because of patent law. How do you make a video about drug prices while ignore patent laws which prevent competition.
@@starspaceschool587 because if they were to include everything that causes drug prices to be so high in the US in the video it would be about the size of LOTR Extended Edition. This is just a slice of the problem that can fit comfortably in a 7 minute video. If you can fully explain why America healthcare is outrageously priced in a less than ten minutes I'd sit down and watch it. This is your call to arms! Become a TH-camr if it's so simple.
Disapointing video... jumped out on a conclusion that just dont seem to be real. If the sales were not profitable everywhere else in the world, industry just wouldnt sell. Dont blame the world for internal affairs...
No this video is taking about purchasing power of the dollar.
The conclusion is ridiculous. The reason they drugs are so expensive, is because the system is bad. The drugs being cheaper elsewhere is a consequence of that, not the reason. And the conclusion is based on nothing as well, because the drug companies make ridiculous margins and you don't know what the prices everywhere would be if the US had a better system.
@@rastapoppetje 'The system is bad', you gonna back that up buddy?
Where's the best quality of care in the world? USA USA USA
Where is the most innovation and new drugs? USA USA USA
Where is there several-month waiting lists for treatment? UK UK UK...
Quit in most comparisons the US provides a similar care and wait time to the UK except in the UK its free
@@polynominastiria6877 Please link any study that even vaguely suggests that wait times are similar. The NHS is constantly 'over-capacity', A&E wait times are ridiculous and, if you're not an immediate emergency, waiting lists are several months.
Quality of care is more similar, yet as this video suggests, this is partly due to piggy-backing on US innovation, and their 'subsidising' costs.
this video is brought to you by...pharma companies
That's a fact, Vox can't be neutral, the leftist media is owned by corrupt technocrats.
It’s like saying suck it up America the world is doin ya wrong
@@AcesHight you're clearly politically illiterate if you think that Vox's take in this video was "leftist". You've probably never come across a leftist TH-cam channel before then. Vox, like most of the media is left on social issues, yes. But this video honestly could've almost been made by Prager "University"
@@AcesHight
Vox is pushing it's neoliberal agenda. Vox was never leftist.
@@AcesHight Calling Vox leftist is like calling Trump a moderate: it's honestly not true, Vox clearly liberal in a "centrist" or a "conservative" point of view but from a "socialist" point of view they are ultra-capitalists. In my viewpoint they are liberals in the real sense of the term: they love liberties, social and economic freedoms, but as you might know, what we call "truth" or "facts" are really challenging to locate.
PS: Really... corrupt technocrats... that's just some anti-elitist rhetoric I ear from nationalists and communists: its meaning is really blurry, just like the word "globalist" and "turbo-capitalism". even the word "Extremist" and "terrorist" are difficult to interpret, we live in a world of words, but words have no clear immobile and perennial meaning
That last line is so misleading ... It reeks of #America first policy. Just because you can't control your healthcare system, don't blame the world for it.
I don't think she was blaming the world but hinting at how much we suck at it.
Yep!!
@AntiMessiah
Correct she say that "the world is ripping us of" *NOT THE PHARMA COMPANIES*
Pharma companies in the US spend as much on R&D as on advertising, illegal in most of the world.
Direct to consumer advertising only legal in the US and New Zeeland.
One reason for higher prices, higher costs.
Most funding for new drugs are paid for by governments and most countries "take a cut" for this IP often in guarantees of low prices, the US just gives it to big business.
That the US pay most/capita does not mean they pay most money, they don't, the US is only 5% of the world.
R&D is not a per capita expense it is a sum.
The US consumer is getting screwed, just having a law *MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO PRICE NEGOTIATE* is completely outrageous, *HOW DO YOU EVEN COME UP WITH AN IDEA LIKE THAT AND THEN PASS IT??*
Why was this not even in her model of how it works, it is important.
Qinby 1 Well, the US showed again and again that they suck at deciding on law in favour of the consumer.
I love the globalist narrative that America first is always bad. Obviously we're going to put ourselves first.
I was a bit surprised that you didn't mention the impact of the additional costs for US consumers as a result of massive advertising campaigns...
how much do you want in a 4 minute video?
That would make the video much longer, but I agree it’s part of the problem.
Advertising of medicines..Only in America!
Last time I researched the topic, about 60% of the income of drug companies was going to advertising. This does not include only TV advertising, but also salesmen going to doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, making conferences, etc...
Most of the research done by drug companies is about evergreening existing drugs, so they can patent them again.
Most of the development of new drugs is done outside big pharma, but the drug companies are the one buying the research after it shows some promise.
@@mridul7639 As someone who lives in America this bugs me to no end. Advertising to consumers is 90% of the time negative outcomes, bad jokes about possible side effects that really only occurred in like .5% of people in one of the clincal trials, people being ultimately confused about their medical issuses and the appropriate medications to improve their health issuses. There is no perfect system, but we need to take steps to get closer to a system that works the best for the most amount of people, being open minded to different approachs and results/efficacy driven. Whew.
"drug companies are for-profit-organisations"
Still your conclusion is that's its basically the fault of the rest of the world?
What's the best way to drive innovation? Profit...
Bryan Cooke
What is the best way to save a life?
By giving people healthcare
There is nothing wrong in being for-profit. It DOES drive innovation. Profit does not always imply exploitation.
@@bryan_cooke Didnt you hear the first few lines???
The govt buys at normal rate then sells them cheap.
Bryan Cooke and where is this innovation? Drug companies make small changes in their drugs that don’t even necessarily have to make them better and they get to keep a patent and continue a monopoly on production, very innovative
Rest of the world: Congratulations America, you played yourself.
Congratulations you probably know more about us policies then your countries own
Haha USA your dumb. * gets taxed at absurd amounts*
This video is really misleading in its last line. It dismisses other research groups and foundations that aren't for-profit around the world that ALSO work towards finding cures and treatments that would develop their own pharmaceuticals- Treating the USA Pharma industry as the sole player. Sure it's a big contributor, but not the only contributor.
JαmëŽǎɏe What a non point. Of course the bigger the contributer, the more people are subjected to it. How is it misleading? The facts still remain that drugs in US still expensive af.
Yeah the reason drugs are expensive in the US in definitely not because it's cheaper elsewhere.
its a four minute video. be calm
@@narda1072 Vox has a huge audience, and their last statement about "subsidy" is very important and very wrong. That is something to be agitated about.
@@narda1072 A bit of a poor argument. If you can not get it right in 4 min then maybe you should make your video a bit longer. 4 min is not a rule on how long a video should be.
(I do think there is a element of truth in that some medication would not have been developed if it was not for a lucrative american market that make the opportunity cost worth wile. However this would likely be offset by public spending and donations. After all a fair bit of medication would never see the light today if it was not for funding from other source then the private sector today.)
Yea yea just blame the rest of the world. Classic US way.
That would be true if profits were all always spend on research, but that's not the case. A lot of spending on things like bonuses, dividends, buying back shares, mergers and acquisitions, etc.
It's no secret that drug companies spend a lot more on Marketing than R&D. The US is onlyone of two countries in the world that legally allows marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers.
The American government spends billions in subsidies for pharma companies. Yes we do spend more for medicine by far than any other country.
So by this logic, if big pharma was allowed to charge high prices around the world like in the US, they would then turn around and decrease prices in the US, right? Or do you think they would just continue to charge the same high price as before because people are willing to pay a lot of money not to die and/or suffer?
WelshZeCorgi I would imagine they would have to give us a discount.
@@angelgjr1999 but why? They would see record profits if they were allowed to increase their prices. Why would shareholders be happy if they then cut into all that gained profit by charging less in the US?
It seems barbaric from a non-us perspective that people can’t afford essential drugs; paying for them through the tax system feels so much more just.
It seems just to only have to pay for what you need and not pay for what someone you have never had any contact with is trying to buy
Tim Macc In the end you pay more for for not helping the other in need but can’t afford it. When that sick person you never met falls ill but can’t afford the received treatment the bill is footed by the public anyway, in which it’s more expensive because hospital charge masters’ prices are outrageous. Healthcare is not a commodity, it is a necessity. Freedom of choice does not mean the freedom to go bankrupt or die.
Tim Macc pretty much no one pays for what the my need when they need it, people either pay for their care via insurance or taxes. If insurance is voluntary then some will not pay, either though lack of foresight or (more frequently) due to poverty. If it’s compulsory then it’s more efficient to do it through the tax system. It’s not in anyone’s interest to let people go untreated.
@@timmacc403 You are blinded by your own selfishness.The government is already collecting your tax money,why dont use that tax money to pay for the healthcare of everybody in your country.I don't understand why you'd rather have your tax money collected but let the government use it for wars instead of funding schools or hospitals to make the cheaper for everone in your country
@@truthhurts1936 The government at the moment is not able to properly use tax money for already existing programs and services, so why should they be given more power and responsibility over a topic that would most likely dived congress over party lines and cause another shutdown when neither the democrats or republicans get what they want and are not willing to compromise. IF our government worked as it was supposed to and was able to properly manage the country's money, the government paying for healthcare would make more sense, but at the moment, it is just not plausible.
Wtf 😂 yeah okay America it’s our fault
Fact 80% of drugs are developed in the united states. Fact the cost to develop the drugs are factored into the cost in the United States. Fact other countries look at the cost of materials for the drugs as a starting point for negotiations instead of the cost of development. The united states is paying for the development of these drugs while other countries reap the benefits. The order of people who profit off a new drug is first the drug companies themselves then foreign customers then finally domestic customers.
Fact if the US adopted the same stance on drugs as other companies as much as 80% of the drugs developed each year would not exist.
@@MikeKing001 Well-said, sir!
Yes it is
mike king you’re gonna hurt a lot of European feelings with your comment
"prescription drugs are move expensive in the US because they're cheaper everywhere else" Yeah. keep telling yourselves that. *rolls eyes*
Typical american. What did you expect?
Next episode: rent is more expensive in the US because it's cheaper everywhere else.
😂💀
It's true. Deal with it. Most of the new drugs hitting the market come from the US. That's actually a hard fact. Not my feelings or opinion. Ask yourself why that's happening. Ask yourself why drug development isn't happening to the same degree in the rest of the world.
@@Astrobucks2 There is a LOT of pharma research going in other countries. Germany has a bunch of big companies, such as Bayer (who are big enough to recently have bought Monsanto), Merck, etc. Switzerland has many, such as Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis...
Out of the top 10 pharma companies, six are European, while four are American.
The cold, hard truth is actually that the pharma companies (including the European ones) take the US to the cleaners. They spend an incredible amount of money on marketing (something not done nearly as much in Europe - I don't recall seeing a pharma ad for anything other than painkillers and cold medicine or similar over-the-counter stuff ever), and huge bonuses. Yes, drug development is hugely costly - which is why they receive a lot of government funding, too.
Pharmaceutical companies try to maximize their profits, they charge what they can get, and in America they can charge anything. Assuming they would lower prices if they charged more elsewhere is foolish.
Was there not some stuff about how the FDA helps block drugs who would compete against drugs already on the market and would lower the cost?
Uh, why? Price correlates to customers inversely. If they lower the price they get more buyers because more people can afford the medicine, and the money lost on each sale due to the reduced price is made back in the volume of new customers. If you were right, then prices would never drop ever without the government forcing companies to.
@@renaissanceweeb but prices are always going up even on old drugs like insulin which cost 21$ in 1996 and now cost around 300$ the epipen cost 100$ in 2007 and is about 700-800$ now.
@@renaissanceweeb Remember, they try to maximize their profits, if they can make more money with lowering prices they would regardless of the government or individual. The problem with healthcare is that you will likely pay almost anything for medicine if it means you continue living, or living comfortably without pain.
@@renaissanceweeb the law of supply and demand doesn't apply on this case, because people don't use medicine as a luxury, they use it as a necessity. and most of the time they don't have a cheaper option, meaning the company can charge any price they want. for the person the only options are usually pay the price they are asking or die.
Thank you, America.
But seriously, for your own sake, elect someone who won’t let the drug companies rip you off.
- lets pharma companies run amok in the US
- "why is the rest of the world doing this?"
The hell? You make it sound like the rest of the world owe you for the drug...
Why don't you create new drugs then, dumbdumb?
Technically they do lol
@@QuitEntertainment I doubt your an expert on the pharma industry.
America already gives Europe military technology, why do we bail the world on everything else as well?
Pharmaceutical companies is a like any other business and they are not going into markets if it is not profitable and if they will see possibility to rise price they will do it (I have worked 5 years in pharmaceutical company in EU).
All I keep hearing is: don't live in the US
Pedro Valente I’m glad I don’t
Rip
Arch 175 I’m glad I do!
I'm glad I don't. My perscription is pretty expensive and I don't have to pay for any of it. I'm gonna stay here haha.
People who said “I don’t”
*20 seconds latter*
*4 terrorists attack happens*
this is not entirely true. Here in Canada, the government subsidizes many medicines in addition to regulating the prices. experience shows that if you let companies decide the price of medicine, they will rise as much as they want, and people HAVE TO pay. Insulin is the best example
This is a disappointing video. Not up to par with the usual standard of quality at Vox. I would like to see more research for the conclusions drawn.
Fact 80% of drugs are developed in the united states. Fact the cost to develop the drugs are factored into the cost in the United States. Fact other countries look at the cost of materials for the drugs as a starting point for negotiations instead of the cost of development. The united states is paying for the development of these drugs while other countries reap the benefits. The order of people who profit off a new drug is first the drug companies themselves then foreign customers then finally domestic customers.
@@MikeKing001 where do you get your numbers from, America only produces around 50% of new drugs discoveries, still a lot for less than 10% of the world, first fact is wrong.
2nd fact, the cost of any R&D is factored into the cost of medicine, do you genuinely think pharmaceutical companies are selling at a loss to anyone? Dont be naive.
3rd fact, the other countries set the price of the drug they are buying (basically what you are saying), what planet do you live on? The likes of the NHS sets limit of how much they are willing to spend, if the pharmaceutical company cant meet that, then the NHS does not buy the medicine, the pharma company is not forced to sell its product.
Your facts are all wrong
@@ajscr3125 number 1 is a stat for all drugs developed not approved. The approved number is somewhere between 41 to 50% the unapproved number is 80% which means us producers are pushing the envelope to develop new products even if it results in loss of potential product.
2 let's suppose I'm the NFL. I can sell the broadcast rights for an expensive price in the usa because this covers the cost of my cameras I can afford to sell the rights cheaper in other countries because my costs are alreadry covered and they wont pay a high price for them. Some money is better then no money in this case. Without the us they would have to charge everyone the same price to put out the same product.
This is a common theme you will see. All organizations show their true colors when it comes to Big Pharma
"So it seems like the UK has the better system, right?"
Yes. You can stop the video there.
electric926 no, America has the better system, its just cheaper in the uk.
Oh Americans...
Mazin Bajalan lol if you have insurance they will gladly take your money, in the uk you’ll get treated no matter your financial status
@@jackcarley6655 except the NHS doesn't cover experimental treatment, or if your treatment has a low success rate, such is life in a socialist utopia
Bee ee this isn’t an argument against a socialist healthcare system, fantastic capitalist health insurance won’t cover for these things either
@@mazinbajalan4334 I am guessing you or your loved ones have never needed to buy your own medication
Yeah thats nice now whats the excuse when the US government pays for the research of a medication at a local university and thr university then sells the patent to big pharma? Also are you actually claiming they where not making profit before they increased price 50 times over ? Because alot of these meds where not originally priced this way and where only Recently price gouged
Drugs cost billions to research and develop and also getting approved is also very expensive. You think its as easy as buying patents from universities and bringing them to market? The video also doesn't mention the FDA is the gold standard worldwide and other countries don't spend nearly as much as the FDA in researching the drugs coming in to their market.
There are also drugs fully developed by the public sector where private pharmaceuticals do not pay for the research: a good example is the ebola vaccine developed in Winnipeg at Canada's biosafety level 4 lab. The claim that the USA's drug buyers are subsidizing everyone else is overly simplistic.
Follow the money. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary re-distribution. Someone is always winning from inflating the price. Just follow the money.
@@michaels4123 The cost to bring to market is indeed expensive, but there are two problems with this go-to argument. (1) Profit margins are very high, so they could take a big hit and still make money (2) companies already spend less than 10% on the R&D process, so it isn't even their biggest expense.. and finally (3) companies, on average, spend over twice as much on marketing and promotion than the R&D+approval process.
She is not trying to make excuces for pharmaceutical companies, she's just explaining the fact a company will always do anything it can to maximize profit. If you think letting the government take over drug research is a good idea, then we should let the government regulate drug prices as well.
Video: “In the UK, it’s $38.”
Me: Damn that’s expensive!
Video: “In the US it’s $300.”
Money goes brrrrrrrrrr!
Hi. Pharmacy student here. You also forgot to mentioned the PBMs or Pharmacy Benefits Managers that play a huge role in where the cost of the Rx is covered. They essentially make deals with the manufacturers and sell them to ur insurance company for higher prices. As a result, higher drug prices.
War on drugs finally worked 🤔🤔🤔
ls7orBust2 no especially if you do stuff like cocaine. You can hurt or kill people, because it isn’t safe.
Police 159 people get hurt or killed regardless of drugs. Drinking kills so many people and we don’t bat an eye. I don’t see the difference. More people get hurt in this war on drugs than the people hurt from drugs. Especially considering there’s no safety for those taking laced drugs
ls7orBust2 Your freedom has its limit when the public is hurt physically, mentally and financially
They really arrested marijuana
@ls7orBust2 TF is wrong with you. Honestly if you actually believe this primative idea of a society just go read about ancient Babylon and you will see why that system has the benefit of keeping people in line but sucks for about every other reason
one thing missing from that is that a lot of the research is done by US universities and not by the drug company themselves.
Exactly, very misleading video
When most of that research is done with the help of grants from places like Gilead and Merck, I don't think it's necessarily fair to make that statement either. The myth that the NIH or "universities" do the bulk of the research is a harmful one. The fact is that these are largely public-private partnerships where the pharma industry gives research grants back to the schools. The schools develop the talent to start new commercial ventures, and the graduates move on to start commercialization vehicles. Most of the expense is done from post-base research to the end of phase 1. Since commercialization is the most expensive part, you can't really say that US universities pay the bill for new drugs.
@@Astrobucks2 three things about your comment
1- you are not denying the fact that they are researched in universities. So the comment stands.
2- if the grants they gave were appropriate for the work that college student because of all the revenue that drug companies get there would be a lot less student debt.
3- it depends on the drug, because oxycontin, yeah maybe it is more expensive to comercialice than the research itself because it isn't that great innovation (unless you count how stupid addictive it is), but drugs like the one for hepatitis c the balance lie on the other side being, due to the years and years of research, and time of researchers and students which is very difficult to take into account in monetary value.
So in the end profits should be split at the very least because corporations always get the better end, thus making them very very cheap for the public. Whats more important is the blatant lie in the video about that the us is financing drug cost in the world. Man people aren't against profit, just against blood-sucking- mind-manipulative-zero-pity- zombie-making corporations and this video works for them.
Yeah, but who pays them? The drug companies.
@@adrianhoraciosantanavaldes1908 1 - No, because pre-clinical research is almost always the least expensive, least effective portion of the development phase. The phase 1-2 commercial phase is 'by far' the most expensive phase, and this requires hundreds of millions 'per compound' to escalate anywhere near phase 2-3 (but gain, most of these fail before they make it anywhere near phase 2). This is why PhDs and others in the graduate programs move on to private commercialization ventures after they do baseline research. Universities do NOT want to get into the game of paying the hundreds of millions (billions) to fund the losers coming out of pre-phase 1 research. Let Wall Street do that for God's sake! 2. Again, the healthy grants given by pharma to graduate level research programs covers the cost to research the drug. This isn't just a big old pool of money to be used on reducing student loans. It doesn't work that way. The money should be paying for the cost of the pre-clinical research. And FYI, most of the graduate PhDs doing this work generally don't graduate with student debt because they're getting extensive grants for this work. What big pharma won't pay for is some under-grad's useless humanities degree. Not happening. 3. For sofosbuvir (Harvoni), the drug's extensive cost (the list price of $1k per pill, which no one has ever ever actually paid) equates to $60-120k to CURE Hep C (not just manage the symptoms). The previous standard of care was to merely manage the symptoms. The cost for that was over $300k per patient between various meds and hospitalization, not to manage the pesky end result of an early death vs the general population. So Gilead had every freaking right to charge the full list of $1k per pill (which again, no one ever paid) to recoup the amortized R&D cost that they (not a university in this case) spent to steer the compound all the way to commercialization. And finally, you're dead wrong. The US, in one form or another, is responsible not only for most of the R&D spent on drug development worldwide, it's also responsible for more than 80% of the approved pharmaceutical compounds produced every year. So yes, this is one area where the US is truly exceptional, and the rest of the world is basically get a heavily subsidized ride in the form of their price controls. The US should be paying less and the rest of the world should be paying more for the research we're doing. Period.
I need an Epi-Pen and i cant afford one. The USA is so ridiculous right now, i mean honestly everything is so expensive. the other day a Mc Donalds meal was $10!
You can just emigrate to norway or the uk :/
The right answer is that we are dealing with some thieves that are getting profits out of others misery.
I understand how you feel. It feels icky to profit from an illness. But, without these companies, these drugs don't exist. Should people go to school, become medical professionals, develop drugs, and test them for safety for free? Do you work for free? How do you suggest we develop new medicines and technology without a profit incentive? I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I am honestly curious?
@@NotRJPrince If he could think that much he wouldn't have commented it.
Not just doctors and Pharma companies are the ones who profit of other people's misery. Lawyers does that too and who doesn't by the way. Cab drivers, Policemen and so on.
The framing of the closing argument sounded more like political rhetoric rather than research based. I expect better from Vox. Please redo this video
But she's not wrong
Alfred Lee lmao
@@adriangonzalez4449
@@adriangonzalez4449 So private pharma companies are selling drugs worldwide at a loss? lmfao
@@adriangonzalez4449The claim that America subsidises medicine for the rest of the world is patently untrue. Big pharma is profitable the world over, but clearly they make the most profit in the US.
Video title: How to throw everyone, except the US, under the bus.
You mean expect the drug company. My opinion for Vox went down significantly for the attempt to create a scapegoat instead of the real one.
Future Presidents, take notes.
I fixed the problem!!!
@ 3:11
Developing new drugs isn’t cheap, and these are for profit companies.
Eliminate the positions making profits, and publicly fund the production of medication. BOOM, problem solved!
No profit motive, no price gouging.
R&D has become lax since last administration allowing politically big pharma to pre-push to market saving millions in R&D.. The public was the R&D. Faster cash flow and does it have anything to do with crooked politicians? That's why so many class actions in last 12 years.
The first brand of asthma inhalers had toxins unsafe for consumers and so a bill was passed ordering all companies to stop production of said drug but the bill also gave them till the new year to get rid of those inhalers by allowing them to sell them out on the market. Its all about money, they dont care about our health or our wallets!
What about advertising costs? As I understand it, only the US and New Zealand allow drug companies to advertise. How does this affect the price of prescription drugs?
when they spend 5x more on marketing than on drug research, it doesnt take a rocket surgeon to realise it could be way lower. XD
It's like charity organizations advertising for donations on prime time TV saying they don't have enough to feed the children LOL spending too much on the wrong things.
@Jedem Das Seine arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-spends-30b-on-marketing-most-of-it-goes-to-doctors/
Well. This time its around 3.5x but still the point stands. They refer to a JAMA research paper on the topic. But this is the most recent stat.
@bongo155 here in new Zealand the drug ads that's play are nothing like the US ones. Its hard to explain but think of a wholesome family owned business advertising, no scaremongering, no 10sec speedup list of side effects, just useful ads showing stuff that most kiwi will need at some point (Nurofen, new inhalers, cough and throat lozenges)
Now you could say that they are mind washing us, but the fact that theses products work and cost less than $20 at our local supermarket and chemist, it doesn't really matter.
@@MrRishik123 Marketing is a net gain for most pharmaceutical companies, as it isn't a necessary stage of producing a supply of drug for sale the only reason to do it is if more sales can be attributed to it than the cost of the ad.
The uk actually rations sovaldi, they delayed approval for months before buying 500 treatments in 2014. They vastly limit how much it is used, and give to those most in need. In the us, people with brand new infections start treatment right after diagnosis. Quality care has no shortcuts - cheap is not good.
Its gives me hope reading the comments, Americans aren't as stupid as we sometimes look, smh. Now we gotta follow the French and revolt, VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!
Revolution is spelt the same in French but just with an accent
3:36 what.....
you can't blame the rest of the world for the US' lack of negotiating skills. America's healthcare system has brought this upon itself.
Imagine thinking that drug companies actually do the research themselves rather than piggyback of publicly funded research
This.
Vox conveniently left out taxpayer funded research.
Nope. Drug companies (not NIH or universities) spent more than $51 billion on R&D in 2014. This represented more than 21% of all US industrial R&D spending. Try knowing your facts before you repeat what John Oliver or your old professor said.
@@Astrobucks2 I was under the impression that Taxpayers - not Big Pharma - have funded the research behind every new drug since 2010
www.pnas.org/content/115/10/2329
@@Astrobucks2 yea the initial research may have been funded by the public but the great risk and the highest costs in developing the drugs comes during clinical trials and upscaling manufacturing. This is WAY more expensive and risky than the publicly funded preclinical research.
Also, government subsidies always increase prices.
What makes you think that? The food industries in so many countries are heavily subsidized yet its so incredible cheap. Fuel is also subsidized yet its still so cheap. Many other major industries also gets subsidized from cars to energy. It often keep the price down.
For people doubting this video, please read the articles and research studies linked in the description before jumping to conclusions.
I feel like this video wasn't very well thought out. It oversimplifies the issue, leaves out a bunch of important factors, and contains some stats that are lacking the appropriate context.
OR, and hear me out, maybe the free market isn't the best system for prescription drugs.
David Hager exactly
@@DavidHager1 Because of this, I will wait for reaction from so call freedom talkhead like Paul Watson responds to this, which will always consist of pushing all the blames to ObamaCare, left wing socialist and Bernie Sanders.
Blasphemy!! Burn the heretic!!
@@DavidHager1 Well, yes and no, while the video says that in regulated single payer systems pharmaceuticals cost way less, it concludes by explaining that the USA is funding the rest of the world because pharmaceutical research and production is made by companies, whose primary objective (being companies) is turning a profit.
I'm criticising the latter part of the video, not the former.
gibsmedat
Everything was spot on untill the end... Blaming the rest of the world for America's problems... America's favourite sport.
How is stating the fact that companies make more money off of Americans, compared to the rest of the world, remotely similar to blaming the rest of the world for America's problems? you're implying the negative intent where there was none. This is our own fault for letting the companies rip Americans off. Don't be a big baby about it.
@@joojoojuice There is no "our own fault".The pharma companies in the US have completly bought the main 2 parties in the US,Lobbying(bribing) politicians by tens of millions to make sure the government does not interfere in their business malpratice.US is the only developed country where the government does not negotiate prices with drug companies,hence why they could charge people in need as high as they can.The government is supposed to represent the people's interest in getting cheaper medicine but instead they are acting as the representative of the big pharma companies.
Fact 80% of drugs are developed in the united states. Fact the cost to develop the drugs are factored into the cost in the United States. Fact other countries look at the cost of materials for the drugs as a starting point for negotiations instead of the cost of development. The united states is paying for the development of these drugs while other countries reap the benefits. The order of people who profit off a new drug is first the drug companies themselves then foreign customers then finally domestic customers.
Wow, I am in a lost of words. Last night this infant was given a $2 million medication that happened to be approved by an insurance company or he would have dead within the year. Last month another boy was given a $1.5 million drug or he would remain blind for the rest of his life.
DO A VIDEO ON HOW PHARMACEUTICAL PRICE MEDICATIONS. ITS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ITS BASED ON WHAT THEY THINK BODY PARTS ARE WORTH TO THE AVERAGE PERSON BUT NOT ON THE ACTUAL COST.
Because I guess the ungodly amounts of money spent on PR by drug companies in the US are also necessary???
Drugs don't work without the ads.
If ads drive sales then yeah it may be necessary.
@@vineetpatel8512 Drugs aren't just your standard goods which are governed by supply and demand; you go to a doctor because you think that something is wrong and he tells you what you need, not misleading ads. Civilised countries such as Germany simply don't allow these ads.
@@Diego-zz1df I literally don't recall ever seeing a drug ad for anything other than standard over-the-counter stuff. Think aspirin, nasal spray, cough syrup. Because drugs market themselves here - because people just go see a medical professional when they're not feeling good, because insurance is a thing, and then someone who knows what they're doing (at least more than you yourself do) can make that decision, not some late-night ad.
Americans and terrible healthcare systems...
Name a more iconic duo. I'll wait.
And now they are blaming the rest of the world for it.
@@frankartanis1290 and that's the American wy
@@SuperChiantos Insurance and the US healthcare system
And fines and lawsuits and higher minimum wage
You know how bad the us healthcare situation is?
Over here my sister is considered a fairly short person. When she travelled to the US, she was suddenly considered tall or at least above-average. That is because Americans have remained the same average height since the 80s while everywhere else in the world average heights increased because of better nutrition and medicine.
Its almost the only country where life expectancy went DOWN and maternal mortality went UP
Just checked: In Finland, epipen costs 55,67€ of which 22,27€ is reimbursed by government, so it costs 33,40€.
Some of the conclusions this video makes are misleading at best.
This argument is pretty dishonest, because nobody in that UK protest is asking for the drug to be available *at any price*. People are asking for it to be available AND affordable. In the US system it is not affordable at all.
That is not at all what the video states. The UK protest is about not having access to a particular drug (having it affordable is implied.)
Well in the UK it would be free at the point of access with no health insurance set up at all. Quite often the drugs that aren't available in the UK are very niece. Since the world health organisation deans France to have the best healthcare system in the world would it not make more sense to focus on it.
@@rivermerchant6102 it is implied that it's not available at all, at least that's how I interpreted it
critical thinking skills are so lacking. the video states its availability not its affordability. jeez
@@narda1072 yes but the video is pushing a fake narrative. The UK has access to Orkambi but they have to pay American prices (£104,000/year or $136,000/year if you prefer). That's what they're protesting against.
The person behind this Vox video is such a moron that they even showed the signs protesting for the price (2:27) while still claiming it's an accessibility issue.
No, many (not all) drug reserch fund by public money and some even involved university to reserch it. But still pharma comp make more dollar out of it
It's important to note that no patients in the UK pay more than $11 for a month's supply for a prescription drug whatever the NHS negotiates for the price it pays.
..I think I got whiplash from that closing statement.
damn, I thought I was watching Vox and not Fox news
Cognitive dissonance, engaged.
Facts omitted in the video: The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is legal.
In the United States were spent in 2020 6.58 billion U.S. dollars and in 2019 6.56 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising.
Almost half of all advertising costs were centered on prescription drugs to treat chronic conditions like arthritis, diabetes, and depression.
If the US switched to that system too, the companies just have to negotiate with govts and release the drugs everywhere for access to all markets, for profits
Takhil Triman then you won’t have other drugs.
People act like there’s just one sickness in the world.
Where do you think money comes from to research other drugs?
Well, you can get orkambi cheap, but you’ll have to wait 200 years for a medicine that fights Alzheimers 🤷🏾♂️😏
This video completely fails to mention how US citizens also subsidize the "research and development" of some these drug companies. But they reap any of the benefits like low pricing. All the profits go to big pharma
this could've been a 2 second video where the word GREED stayed on the screen
You are not greedy? wow.
Are doctors greedy too? Especially oncologists they charge so much.
You missed an important fact about the UK. We pay a set price for every drug no matter how much it costs to buy at the moment it’s £9 or about $11.50 that’s how much you pay for anything on prescription and the rest comes out of taxes and national insurance which you pay depending on income. The epipen costs the government that much but you can often get 2 on the same prescription so it will only cost £9 or if you’re under 18 over 60 or earn under a threshold it’s free. Diabetics also get free medication no matter what because uncontrolled diabetes costs more than the medication
Vetted international online pharmacies are just as safe as domestic ones - but a lot cheaper. In many cases, the exact same medicine sold here, such as those you may find at a local Walgreens or CVS, costs 90% less from an international online pharmacy.
Come to India you can find insulin at the cost of $2 dollars
pavan savana a bit of a confusion there for you. While it’s true that drugs are cheaper here the insulin you mention is bovine insulin and not human insulin which is expensive.
I guess that's partly because it can be produced as a generic (patent expired) and India produces a lot generics. I guess if the state is willing and able to produce generics themselves and they have sufficient economies of scale, they could produce relatively affordable drugs to give the big pharma guys a run for their money.
@@tanmaypagar8022 The cost of Human insulin is under Rs.3000 which is $50
I get chest infections. Course is antibiotics and steroids. I've been getting scripts from India. Saves me at least $150 per incident. The AMA has a chokehold on dispensation here us. Break that union Washington, you have most others
@@omeyehead7436 international pharmacies seem like a lifesaver for people in the USA. Which is sad. Even with air shipping, it can end up cheaper than american health insurance coverage.
The reason its so expensive is because there is no competition. Some companies simply has a monopoly on a drug that cures a specific sicknesss.
Consumers has no other choice.
Exactly and they've eliminated the competition by playing the patent game. Nevermind the fact that the U.S did tried to extend their patent controlling capabilities several years ago via TPP.
And isn't it the job of the market to to create an alternative drug to compete with said monopoly?
@@bri1085 not when patenting is involved that any attempt you do to create or re-create said alternative drug will be met with lawsuits. Let alone the complications of funding your R&D that would also be met with so much resistance and bureaucracy intended to dissuade people from attempting.
Keep in mind that drug companies don't just patent ONE drug for an illness, they patent multiple but only sell + produce one so that no other companies can try to produce an 'alternative'.
@@ZoriZM find an alternative that completely avoids existing patents, duh.
@@bri1085 jfc, you're dumb, no wonder this video easily manipulates people like you.
This video omits the fact that a lot of the initial work in developing new drugs is actually done in publically-funded research programmes at universities. The pharmaceutical companies only come in once this initial research has been through a rigorous academic evaluation; the pharmaceutical companies are essentially bringing a product to market. So if you pay taxes and college fees, by the time you need the pay for the drug in a pharmacy, you've already paid for it twice.
Mind blown! Thank you for this. Totally get it now. The thing is, that once those pharmaceutical companies make there money back, the price should go down. But it doesn't. Insulin drugs are 40 years old yet there still $600 for a 30 day supply... Also, these research and development companies receive billions in subsidies from the government, and spend millions on lobbying
I'm tired of saying "capitalism" and "fear of a real collective goverment"
+👏
Man, poor people really are getting screwed in that country.
Kazerz I’m from the US, where do you live and can I move there?
@@kitkatkiki677 Plenty of options love. Basically any other developed country in the world...
Kazerz Yeah, and all under the illusion of freedom.
Kazerz then stop being poor
Big oof
That was a very objective observation of how the drug industry works.
Well I must admit. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I’m subsidizing drugs for the rest of the world. Not!
Glad I am European. Also, medicine should not be a business, medicine should be something affordable by anyone. Capitalism in the medicine field is just disgusting....
These drugs wouldn't exist in the first place without the incentive to make them.
Luis Anton Imperial *government incentive
@@LuisAntonImperial take a history of science class, you'll find most advances in science (including medicine) was done by people who were not in fact motivated by greed. Because it turns out greed isn't a good motivator to help people, it's just a motivator to try and scam them.
@@TalysAlankil That's not how pharmaceuticals work. It costs over a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market and then there is a very high chance it will fail to pass review. There would be no Hep C cure if there was no profit motive. Who the hell would invest that kind of money on a venture that has a high risk of failure and zero profit? There is a huge reason why damned near every new drug is created in capitalist countries and not socialist ones.
@@QarthCEO majority of drugs are university research funded by the government then sold to private companies. In the us they are given to companies freely and then they charge what ever they want.
the problem is that drug companies patent the drug, not allowing competition, with competition, they will be forced to lower their prices to out-compete and get more customers
But then they will lose the drive for researching new drugs
@@destroyer2496 isnt the price of the drug itself and the money earned, drive enough? and if its not, how did we get even herbal medicine before patents? it's obviously profitable enough to get people to do it, patent or not, most of what current drug companies sell have had their patents expire. and no they arent subsidizing costs with the 2% they have patents on, but the problem is that its on drugs that people need to survive, and should have competition to prevent price-gouging and extreme markup
I've had scabies for the past 2 years, and I've been fighting through it with home remedies because the prescriptions are way to damn expensive; it's $100 for an appointment to get 2-3 tubes prescribed, then $100 per tube from the pharmacy. I can't afford to do that on minimum wage, so it just progressively gets worse. It's so much cheaper to buy a $2 bottle of permethrine spray (versus the $100 tube of creme that's prescribed) and just spray it all over myself.
Anyone from Europe or Canada who says America is on easy mode, I want you to come down here, find a job and try and pay for school/healthcare; you'll find a lot of uncaring people if you can't afford it.
If you are sure it's scabies you have... Why don't you visit your local pharmacy and let the local pharmacist place you on some over the counter medications that would relieve you... A little permethrin or crotamiton or even benzoyl benzoate cream coupled with otc antihistamines for itching and oral ivermectin tablets or albendazole would actually solve your problem instead of going through discomfort for 2 whole years.... Or am missing out of something here?
Actually EPI-PENS are completely FREE in the UK just by getting a prescription from your doctor (which you have to anyway). This is the same for all prescription drugs, you just have to pay a small processing fee (normally around £8) but this can be wiped if you fit into an exemption category which a lot of people do.
Our NHS is very good in that sense...
“Why drugs cost more in America”
Laughs in Indian
John Samuel: what do you mean by Indian?
@@r2.b2 india has incredibly cheap drugs.
@@ashgreninja7521 More like toilets
R2 B2 drugs in india are very cheap . we export a lot of generic drugs to other countries as well
*Laughs In Canadian.*
Short answer: *greed.*
@ls7orBust2 And yet, countries that are more regulated (as the videos example, the UK), have better (more affordable) access to drugs.
Huh. Weird. Guess we'll never find out why.
@ls7orBust2 don't defend a system that can bankrupt people by overpricing them for medication they need to survive
Although an Epipen costs the NHS £45, all prescriptions in England are £8.80 (free in Scotland and Wales), so in fact, in England the cost the the patient is closer to $11
The argument presented in this video does make sense. Because drugs are able to be sold for more in the US, pharma's expected ROI from researching any given drug is higher. This implies that some drugs that otherwise would have negative ROI (not worth researching) now have a positive ROI, and are able to make it to market. This is super important because the primary factor contributing to the cost of a drug is not its manufacturing, but its development and research. The _catch_ here is when we have drugs that -- even without the inflated pricing in the US -- would nonetheless have a positive ROI. It's situations like this where the extra cost to consumers isn't motivating pharma companies to research a new drugs, but simply padding their pocketbooks.
It would be interesting to know which drugs are the "motivated" kind and which are the "padding the pocketbooks" kind. I have a suspicion that most "motivated" drugs are treatments that only help a relatively small number of people with serious conditions. Novartis's new $2.1M gene therapy treatment for SMA seems like an example of a treatment that never would have come into existence were it not for the fact that Novartis can get away with charging millions of dollars for it. But something like Epi-Pen or Lantus? These drugs help a relatively large number of people and their development was no gamble. So the trade-off is this: lower drug prices in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter) may delay or prevent other treatments from coming to market. If my suspicion is right, these delayed or prevented treatments are intended for small or otherwise less profitable populations. Is it worth it?
*Nothings costs more*
Than foods in movie theatres
Now imagine medicine in movie theatres
Erm, food in the hospital?
Two words , Martin Shkreli .
Big pharma doesn't overprice drugs because they have to , they overprice them cos they want to and fundamentally, because they can.
No strings attached to campaign contributions? Psshh .
i love how it's called Gilead... makes me think of a certain show i once saw....
I thank the US for paying a high price for the drugs I need, but not available in my country.
Thanks America for paying for my drugs!
we suffer so you don't have to
@@sallyshoaf9505 * Salutes *
Sadly this video doesn't touch the pharma industries profit margins. After all I think suggesting these companies are selling at a loss in the rest of the world is pretty far-fetched.
the marginal cost of most medicine is very low--what they are trying to do is cover the massive fixed upfront investment of getting the drug to market over the lifespan of their patent, and that has to come from somewhere
Al Quinn well they say that but still I would prefer actual figures of profit and how many fail trying. Only that can make well-informed base of knowledge to judge their behaviors.
The lack of bargaining chips for the consumers in the us is majorly due to the face that the government regulations gave certain companies such a high power .
Yes. This video made me feel better in every way. Just like I was hoping.
Nice video but with one HUGE mistake... The US does not subsidize drugs for the rest of the world, they actually make them more expensive for everyone else who wants to negotiate.
1. Most drug molecule research is done in academia and national research labs NOT by the drug companies. Drug companies use this data to make their drug at a publicly subsidized cost where most of "their R&D" is deciding now best to make money off it.
2. Big Pharma had the highest profit margins of any industry, yes even with their HUGE salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes to the higher ups plus all the money they spend on advertising directly to consumers (why is this legal in the USA??).
3. Since drug companies can make such huge profits in the USA alone they keep their prices high, and even increases their prices by massive amounts making negotiating with them on a fair playing field impossible for ever other country since they can just not release that drug anywhere else without a huge impact.
4. (Many more points)
I could go on for a while here and continue to show how poorly researched this video is that even some nobody, who does not work in the industry, knows more then your research team but you get the idea.
This industry currently is just robbing the population of the world while only focusing on making money above the lives of the people they say they are helping. 😡
Thank you. This video pissed me off but I didn't want to go to the trouble of writing out a full comment, you nailed pretty much everything I was going to say. To the top with you!
Preach, buddy.
This was an awful video
@@_LocalGhost_ thanks a bunch 😊
Honestly I rarely comment on these things but this type of reporting is just misinforming people and becomes part of the problem of why this never changes 😩
These reporters are just being irresponsible in their reporting
@@anna.m8 didn't mean to sound preachy 😅
@@FrankSalazar I think they meant preach in a good way :)
hey im from europe and i want to thank yall for subsidising our medicin xxx
Thank god I'm insured
Yo keep it down. Trump wants the pharmaceutical companies to charge us more and reduce American prices.
Not subsidised, they're not giving them away.
@@LegendaryBrandon1 thank god im not living in the US
Hey I'm from America and total access is amazing 👌
@@johndewit6877 where do you live? The US has the most advanced economy in the world.
So we are suffering from medication prices because others can easily afford the medication. Wow government and medication companies thanks for limiting do from necessary medication and for making the US’s medication prices through the roof.
My mother in one week was having health problems, she did went to the doctor, went for MRI and at the end of the week was in surgery, next Monday she was in her house safe and well. She did not worry of money, medicines or cost at any level. Universal healthcare!!!
The $300 is for a two pack.
They cost about $112 here in Nova Scotia Canada. (not for a two pack but for a single pen)
I'm not contending with any perspective or opinion, but I DO think these details are CRUCIAL in regards to helping people understand the reality of a situation.
There are quite a few other significant factors involved in healthcare/pharma pricing, but this covered some of the main differentials with more nuance than I was expecting.
Never forget, whatever the supposed cost of a drug treatment in the UK, the patient will only ever pay the pharmacy prescription charge - irrespective of the actual cost of the drug. So when the video says that the cost of a course of Sovaldi in the UK was $38,000 this is NOT what the patient would pay. They patient would only pay the current prescription charge which (at time of writing) is £9.50 (about twelve US dollars).
I believe that there are other factors: The cost of direct marketing to the patient and a risk premium because manufacturers can be sued for billions in the US.
For-profit healthcare is a goddamn sin.
ampersand08: disagree, for-profit health care ensures a contract between patient and health care provider, thus allowing for accountability. Zero accountability for health care is as scary as unaffordability. What is disgusting is that the cost of health care services and medicines are completely disproportionate to their value in the US. This is not because of the for-profit model as such, but is a structural problem which involves multiple stakeholders including insurance companies, doctors, pharma companies, and the government. It's difficult changing a status quo.
And they are more focused on trade war....health of the people’s are optional for them....
THEY GOT WHAT THEY ASKED FOR....
You know we have a president trying to work with Congress on this very thing!?!? Right?!?! Oh...CNN didn’t tell you that?? Hmmmm...
It was on 60 minutes: "It might be the biggest price-fixing scheme in U.S. history. On Friday, Connecticut and a coalition of more than 40 states filed a 500-page lawsuit accusing the biggest generic drug makers of a massive, systematic conspiracy to bilk consumers out of billions of dollars."