

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Cutting drug prices presents a bigger challenge than cutting out drug advertising, but the rewards would be huge. (Photo: Chris Potter/flickr/cc)
Prescription drugs have long provided two bad examples of American exceptionalism. They cost three-to-four times more than anywhere else, and we're one of only two countries in the world that allows prescription drug advertising to consumers.
Far better to be like everybody else. Americans deserve drug prices in line with those in other countries. They don't deserve a constant barrage of confusing and misleading ads.
Advertising is the lesser of two evils and the simplest to counter: just stop it already. Important voices have already made that recommendation.
TV commercials for prescription drugs always tell consumers to "ask your doctor." But the companies that pay billions to run the ads aren't listening to doctors. For the last five years, the American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of such drugs.
Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020.
Here's what the drug makers are ignoring: "[The AMA's] vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices....Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."
New Zealand--the lone other country that permits such advertising--could soon disallow it. A large majority of New Zealanders favors a ban, and one might be included in a bill now being considered. Its passage would make America truly exceptional in a truly drugged up way.
Cutting drug prices presents a bigger challenge than cutting out drug advertising, but the rewards would be huge.
Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020 (more than 2.2 percent of gross domestic product). The basic research underlying these drugs is almost always carried out with taxpayer dollars at university or government research labs, mostly through the National Institutes of Health.
The research findings used to stay in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. In 1980, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act made a watershed change: it allowed for the rights to be turned over to private parties.
While the point of Bayh-Dole was to hasten the harnessing of basic research, it also sent the price of drugs soaring. Spending on prescription drugs had been largely stable at around 0.4 percent of GDP from 1960 to 1980. In the decade after Bayh-Dole it had doubled to 0.8 percent and it doubled again in the next decade.
We now have this bizarre mindset that we have to give drug companies patent monopolies to get them to develop drugs or vaccines, even when the government is paying for the bulk of the research. The pandemic is showing the absurdity of this practice.
When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.
As one example Gilead Sciences developed the drug remdesivir, largely with government funding, as a treatment for Ebola. While it turned out not to be an effective treatment for Ebola, it is effective in treating the coronavirus. Gilead is charging private insurers $520 for a single vial of remdesivir. Its actual production cost has been estimated at less than a dollar a dose.
The Trump Administration is taking the same logic to developing a vaccine. Operation Warp Speed is a $10 billion government program to develop, produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. At least four Warp Speed contracts (to Janssen, Regeneron, Genentech and Ology Bioservices) exclude standard language "meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available."
In effect, the government is putting up most of the money and taking the big risks. If one or more of these developers hit a dead end, they will still have been paid for their work, the government is out the money. But if they do succeed and develop a life-saving vaccine, the government will give them a patent monopoly and allow them to charge whatever they want, with no restriction whatsoever.
It shouldn't be too radical a proposition to say that drug companies only get paid once. When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.
It would be a great thing for humanity if a low-priced coronavirus vaccine became the first example of a new prescription drug policy in America.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Prescription drugs have long provided two bad examples of American exceptionalism. They cost three-to-four times more than anywhere else, and we're one of only two countries in the world that allows prescription drug advertising to consumers.
Far better to be like everybody else. Americans deserve drug prices in line with those in other countries. They don't deserve a constant barrage of confusing and misleading ads.
Advertising is the lesser of two evils and the simplest to counter: just stop it already. Important voices have already made that recommendation.
TV commercials for prescription drugs always tell consumers to "ask your doctor." But the companies that pay billions to run the ads aren't listening to doctors. For the last five years, the American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of such drugs.
Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020.
Here's what the drug makers are ignoring: "[The AMA's] vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices....Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."
New Zealand--the lone other country that permits such advertising--could soon disallow it. A large majority of New Zealanders favors a ban, and one might be included in a bill now being considered. Its passage would make America truly exceptional in a truly drugged up way.
Cutting drug prices presents a bigger challenge than cutting out drug advertising, but the rewards would be huge.
Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020 (more than 2.2 percent of gross domestic product). The basic research underlying these drugs is almost always carried out with taxpayer dollars at university or government research labs, mostly through the National Institutes of Health.
The research findings used to stay in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. In 1980, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act made a watershed change: it allowed for the rights to be turned over to private parties.
While the point of Bayh-Dole was to hasten the harnessing of basic research, it also sent the price of drugs soaring. Spending on prescription drugs had been largely stable at around 0.4 percent of GDP from 1960 to 1980. In the decade after Bayh-Dole it had doubled to 0.8 percent and it doubled again in the next decade.
We now have this bizarre mindset that we have to give drug companies patent monopolies to get them to develop drugs or vaccines, even when the government is paying for the bulk of the research. The pandemic is showing the absurdity of this practice.
When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.
As one example Gilead Sciences developed the drug remdesivir, largely with government funding, as a treatment for Ebola. While it turned out not to be an effective treatment for Ebola, it is effective in treating the coronavirus. Gilead is charging private insurers $520 for a single vial of remdesivir. Its actual production cost has been estimated at less than a dollar a dose.
The Trump Administration is taking the same logic to developing a vaccine. Operation Warp Speed is a $10 billion government program to develop, produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. At least four Warp Speed contracts (to Janssen, Regeneron, Genentech and Ology Bioservices) exclude standard language "meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available."
In effect, the government is putting up most of the money and taking the big risks. If one or more of these developers hit a dead end, they will still have been paid for their work, the government is out the money. But if they do succeed and develop a life-saving vaccine, the government will give them a patent monopoly and allow them to charge whatever they want, with no restriction whatsoever.
It shouldn't be too radical a proposition to say that drug companies only get paid once. When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.
It would be a great thing for humanity if a low-priced coronavirus vaccine became the first example of a new prescription drug policy in America.
Prescription drugs have long provided two bad examples of American exceptionalism. They cost three-to-four times more than anywhere else, and we're one of only two countries in the world that allows prescription drug advertising to consumers.
Far better to be like everybody else. Americans deserve drug prices in line with those in other countries. They don't deserve a constant barrage of confusing and misleading ads.
Advertising is the lesser of two evils and the simplest to counter: just stop it already. Important voices have already made that recommendation.
TV commercials for prescription drugs always tell consumers to "ask your doctor." But the companies that pay billions to run the ads aren't listening to doctors. For the last five years, the American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of such drugs.
Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020.
Here's what the drug makers are ignoring: "[The AMA's] vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices....Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate."
New Zealand--the lone other country that permits such advertising--could soon disallow it. A large majority of New Zealanders favors a ban, and one might be included in a bill now being considered. Its passage would make America truly exceptional in a truly drugged up way.
Cutting drug prices presents a bigger challenge than cutting out drug advertising, but the rewards would be huge.
Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020 (more than 2.2 percent of gross domestic product). The basic research underlying these drugs is almost always carried out with taxpayer dollars at university or government research labs, mostly through the National Institutes of Health.
The research findings used to stay in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. In 1980, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act made a watershed change: it allowed for the rights to be turned over to private parties.
While the point of Bayh-Dole was to hasten the harnessing of basic research, it also sent the price of drugs soaring. Spending on prescription drugs had been largely stable at around 0.4 percent of GDP from 1960 to 1980. In the decade after Bayh-Dole it had doubled to 0.8 percent and it doubled again in the next decade.
We now have this bizarre mindset that we have to give drug companies patent monopolies to get them to develop drugs or vaccines, even when the government is paying for the bulk of the research. The pandemic is showing the absurdity of this practice.
When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.
As one example Gilead Sciences developed the drug remdesivir, largely with government funding, as a treatment for Ebola. While it turned out not to be an effective treatment for Ebola, it is effective in treating the coronavirus. Gilead is charging private insurers $520 for a single vial of remdesivir. Its actual production cost has been estimated at less than a dollar a dose.
The Trump Administration is taking the same logic to developing a vaccine. Operation Warp Speed is a $10 billion government program to develop, produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. At least four Warp Speed contracts (to Janssen, Regeneron, Genentech and Ology Bioservices) exclude standard language "meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available."
In effect, the government is putting up most of the money and taking the big risks. If one or more of these developers hit a dead end, they will still have been paid for their work, the government is out the money. But if they do succeed and develop a life-saving vaccine, the government will give them a patent monopoly and allow them to charge whatever they want, with no restriction whatsoever.
It shouldn't be too radical a proposition to say that drug companies only get paid once. When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.
It would be a great thing for humanity if a low-priced coronavirus vaccine became the first example of a new prescription drug policy in America.