Precisely. I worked a little bit for a large pharma company (in a finance capacity) and I saw first hand how incredibly profitable it is for the US government to not have negotiating power on drug prices.
Pharma companies make a wildly disproportionate share of their global profits in the US simply because they don't have to negotiate with a large 'super-buyer" (e.g. medicare).
Now if pharma R&D were productive I wouldn't have a problem with this, but it's notoriously unproductive (and not just because of the admittedly overly burdensome FDA regulations).
I would support a grand compromise:
1) for pharma companies: reduce FDA hurdles for drug approval, but add more aggressive post-approval tracking (to reduce the risks associated with a lower regulatory hurdle)
2) for the rest of us: allow medicare to negotiate aggressively on price, this will have a ripple effect and lead to lower drug prices for all.
Pharma companies make a wildly disproportionate share of their global profits in the US simply because they don't have to negotiate with a large 'super-buyer" (e.g. medicare).
Now if pharma R&D were productive I wouldn't have a problem with this, but it's notoriously unproductive (and not just because of the admittedly overly burdensome FDA regulations).
I would support a grand compromise: 1) for pharma companies: reduce FDA hurdles for drug approval, but add more aggressive post-approval tracking (to reduce the risks associated with a lower regulatory hurdle) 2) for the rest of us: allow medicare to negotiate aggressively on price, this will have a ripple effect and lead to lower drug prices for all.