I wasn't too sure where to go for help on this. I know many here are fairly knowledgeable about policies and the ins-and-outs of our U.S. government. Hopefully you guys can give me some guidance on this. I've a paper to write; the basis is to give advice to a congressman who has found himself in a bind. A drug company has manufactured a wonder drug that causes 3/4 of cancers in humans to go into remission. Of course, the drug is high in demand and high in cost. Few can pay for it, and insurance companies are reluctant to pay at all. With the company investing so much into it, its focus is to maximize profit and reduce debt. They've pointed out to the congressman that any attempts to take away their interest in the drug could ruin the company, and could scare off other entrepreneurs from developing new products. The congressman is slightly democratic, not always following the official democratic position and had scraped by winning the last election. His district is 53% democratic, but the general populace is fairly conservative socially and economically. The House Democratic leadership is pushing for government intervention, with most calling for government controls on the price of the drug and mainly in favor of forcing the company to give the formula to generic drug makers. Democrats are NOT a majority in the House, and Republicans feel like any government action should not be so intrusive. The district, located in California, has many computer and bio-tech companies in the northern region. Additionally, it is home to many retired individuals. Due to this, many are anxious to insure that the wonder drug will be available for cheap, with 48% of the district agreeing that the government should take over. The hi-tech companies are in disagreements, and are concerned that if the government takes over the drug company, that they will be next. They have stated they will not support the congressman in the next election if he votes to reduce the value of the drug. Sorry for the long post, but I'd appreciate any views on the matter. The more detailed the better. I must pick a course of action and describe it, with pros and cons.
I would say the government needs to stay away. Obviously, this "wonder" drug would be duplicated by many medical corporations, lowering the price without government intervention. The congressman should not care about getting reelected, working for the people is a privilege, not a career.
Considering the price of chemo and caring for cancer patients, the insurance companies would probably fit the bill for the drug in a heartbeat. Plus, all drugs have a period of time in which it's illegal to copy the drug. The companies need that kind of protection to recoup their investment.
Cure 3/4 of cancer. Clearly large public interest here. Try the position of giving the company incentives for price reductions that last until generic can be provided. Remember that everyone will have cancer just that some of us are unfortunate enough to die before getting it.
Have the Congressman work to abolish Intellectual Property so that thousands of others can make this drug, lowering the cost. Boom. IP is neither liberal or conservative, so you're good.
1. Have the Drug company give you Money 2. VOte the way the drug company wants you to vote 3. Use half the money received from drug company to smear and blast your opponent, pay for experts to come in with stories spinning the story with 'good' benefits in why you chose to vote the way you did (similar to the GMo labeling in California) 4. Get releceted and have more money than before It seems the big problem is the worry of getting re-elected.. Those people are sheep and can be manipulated, you give some of that cash to your collegue congressmen, senators and the president if he is on your side to publicly support you if their approvals are high and use all the other tactics. ALso begin to pull out all the manipulating statistical polls. Thats how the system works
75% of cancer is cured? Look, GOVT props up privately held corps all the time through tax loop holes, bail outs, & govt contracts. Why couldn't you close a loop hole for a MNC(s), redirect spending or put a hold on some military toy spending and maybe subsidize/invest in this--if spending on this CO was a problem in public eye? At same time, republican opposition shouldn't be a problem since republicans tout deficit reduction. medical spending is a huge driver of our deficit. You telling me that repubs wouldn't be on board with subsidizing a cancer drug that would reduce deficits long term? Go ahead an blast the insurance company while you're at it. That's a dem's go to move anyway. In this scenario, it would seem right given that they would likely pay for expensive cancer treatments anyway with much lower success rates. Surely it is in the public's best interest to make this medicine avail to all without necessarily stripping the private owners for their 'invention' & R&D efforts. The problem here is the status quo: You'd likely have a lot of visits from the established powers that be that rely on cancer being such a problem: capital equipment, other drug cos, charities, dr groups(cancer specialties) that might try to privately lobby you. don't get bought.
This hypothetical is kind of weird. Presumably, the company that developed the drug would immediately obtain a patent and essentially have a monopoly on the drug for several years, at least within the borders of the United States. They will more than recoup their R&D costs during that time period. In fact, many economists think that US drug patents are given out too freely and for too long a time period. Additionally, the only way for the US government to institute "price controls" is through the bargaining power of Medicare, as direct price controls would probably be found unconstitutional. Of course, this latter step is a no-brainer given the cost of the various Medicare drug programs and the efficacy of the drug. Such a measure would probably be taken regardless of how this individual congressman felt. Thus, it seems to me a non-issue, but I'm probably missing something.
Study the aids drug market its a remarkable study of the prescription drug industry . i think looking at it globally will. make you stand out. drug companies outside the us started making aids drugs available in africa. they weren't beholden to us patents i believe but i really dobt understand that aspect
It's true that US patents are ignored in may places around the world, often to the benefit of some of the poorest people worldwide. In fact, most major US pharmaceuticals account for this phenomenon, and it doesn't really affect them much because their target market (for now) is still substantially domestic. Sure, foreign drugs are sometimes smuggled into the US, but until their patent expires, the generics will be black market material and won't have too much effect on prices. Thus, speaking from a strictly American viewpoint, foreign drug companies probably wouldn't factor much into this discussion.
Simplistic idea. have a vote to see if the public wants the government to reimburse the company's r&d costs. r&d cost are why drugs are so expensive at their introduction. companies spend a lot of money to develop a drug while not making any money from that drug
