Obama Seeks More Generic Prescription Drugs

Reader Comments
Back to blog

MediaCurves.com just conducted a national study with 966 viewers of a news clip highlighting the potential dangers of generic brand drugs. illustrating the dangers of texting and driving. Results showed that nearly half of viewers (46%) reported that they are less likely to purchase generic drugs after watching the video. The study also found that 66% of viewers had a more negative perception of generic brand drugs after watching the news clip. More in-depth results can be viewed at http://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCare/J7539-Generic-Drugs/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben

Ben of NJ 4:23PM September 04, 2009

Barry - Outstanding commentary. It is tragic that it seems increasingly difficult for the common man to comprehend the simple reality of a free market's ability to do the most good for the most people most of the time. Not PERFECT good. Not flawless efficiency, but vastly better than any alternative yet derived by man. Those who seek to diminish it in any way, must be carefully scrutinized for their personal entanglement and motivations.
On the face of it, it does in fact seem very self serving and preservationist to buy off a generic company's entry to the market. But with the slightest effort one can recognize in this the very proof of the free market’s fierce efficiency. The generic manufacturers exploit the expensive, expansive work of the brand manufacturers for their sustenance within the law. The manufacturers, in turn, evaluate the situation and respond with their most efficient value proposition, given the environment - and thank goodness they do. Because the day it becomes non-profitable to create and bring life-saving drugs to market, is the day the whole industry collapses.
Today's WSJournal has an article decrying the manufacturers efforts to diminish insurers ability to price patients out of their brand with high copays. The focus of these drug cost arguments are almost always myopic and rarely consider the simple fact that increases in drug expenditures typically lead to lower healthcare costs overall (less emergency room visits and hospitalizations, etc.) and enhanced patient outcomes. Of course they usually ignore the truly insidious effect of unbridled litigation on costs throughout the system.
In an efficient market, the greater good will ultimately be served and the purely self servant will ultimately fail.
So too will every significant player involved in the pending travesty of universal healthcare find a way to profit best for themselves and their stakeholders. Only here the beneficiaries aren’t the public. In the case of government, the weak and inefficient do not fail as they should but instead survive on perpetual life support given freely by the hand that doesn’t earn it (the government) from the hand of those that did not want or choose it in the majority (the people). Tragically most will not comprehend this until it is too late. But it's nice to see someone who does.

Greg B of NY 7:03PM July 20, 2009

The cost of doing business must be entirely recovered from customers, if a business is to survive for the long term. Pharmaceutical companies must charge what the market will bear to recover the cost of research, development, drug trials, and the FDA approval process. The amount of time they have to recover these costs is limited by the expiration date of the patent on the drug. Afterwards competitors, who did not bear these costs, will be able to produce the same drug at much reduced costs, because they only need to cover the cost of production, not research, development, testing, and FDA approval.
Therefore these up-front costs must be recovered before the patents expire, before they are confronted with low cost competition. Preventing companies from recovering these costs would prevent future research and development, as there would be no funding for it. Drugs likely to benefit the largest number of people are most likely to be produced, as the costs of research and development can be spread across a larger market of paying customers. Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Vast sums will not be spent on research and development that would only benefit a few people, as there would not be enough customers ready, willing, and able to pay for it. Trade-offs are as inescapable as they are tragic. For example, at some point, the testing designed to save lives from potential side effects costs more lives by keeping lifesaving drugs off the market too long.
Given finite resources, the free market distributes the greatest benefit among the most people, and provides us with the most effective pharmaceutical industry in the world, saving lives and extending lives like never before. But it does have its limits. If you believe these companies are excessively profitable, buy their stock. Look what our government has done to the banking industry, the housing industry, and the automobile industry. I do not even trust politicians to know what is best for us, nor to I trust them to be properly motivated, or be free from corrupting influences. They will only make things worse. Traveling the world you see the standard of living in other countries, and you see that all of the countries with socialized medicine are much poorer, having allowed their politicians to misallocate such a large proportion of their country’s resources on many different things, including healthcare, without much to show for it. Of course there are anecdotal exceptions, and many people go to Mexico and elsewhere to seek extraordinary measures not permitted by safeguards here.
More on Thalidomide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
P.S. Sorry about your father. No words of mine could be adequate to comfort you after such a loss. I wish you the strength and understanding needed for you to persevere. My uncle died from a rare drug reaction after a successful bypass operation. I know there is no compensating such a loss.

Barry of CA 10:55AM June 24, 2009

I don't feel its legal at ALL for a brand name drug company to pay a generic drug company to "SIT IT OUT". We are talking about HUMAN HEALTH here. The elderly can't even afford the generic drugs much less the brand names. They wait for their social security checks each month to pay for these drugs. Many are out of their prescription BEFORE the check arrival. Many are asking the pharmacist if they can charge it on credit.
Drugs SHOULD NOT be allowed "for profit" as a consumer good.
The cost of drugs is "outlandish" as all health care is. $500. or more for an ambulance to carry someone one block to the ER. CRAZY!

Phyllis of NC 8:38AM June 24, 2009