Even if a medication continues to be launched in Canada, access for patients across the nation may matter. This really is mainly an effect
to the fact that Canada has ten formularies, about which decisions are created individually by provinces. Research conducted recently
that examined the 148 new drug molecules launched between 1991 and 1998 shown significant variation in access in provincial
drug programs.22 For instance, from the twenty-three drugs for coronary disease, one province had ten underneath the drug program and the other
had basically one. Variations like these put together despite correcting for known variations between provincial programs
(for instance, some cancer medicine is funded through the government through cancer boards and aren’t incorporated around the provincial
formularies). Cost is unquestionably considered during these decisions and could well have something related to these variations.
Clearly, in certain provinces individuals need to pay up front for several prescription medications that could have been subsidized
by government in another province, or worse, they might require the drug whatsoever.
Such findings raise questions regarding how provincial formulary decisions are really made. Companies declare that they offer
exactly the same information towards the various provinces, the decisions will vary. Actually, for that economic evaluation component
from the submissions (that is frequently essential by government), you will find recognized national guidelines. Industry spokespeople
express frustration they spend effort and time getting evaluations conducted based on the guidelines, yet governments
appear to disregard them. This really is even though according to two years’ price of knowledge about the rules, an evaluation demonstrated
that economic evaluations were well presented, complete, and transparent, thanks partly towards the guidelines.23
You will find conflicting claims concerning the results of reference based prices. A 1996 survey figured that seniors
in Bc supported the RBP program greater than 90 % of individuals surveyed were for, and just 14 % believed
it would affect use of care.24 However, the association in Canada challenged RBP within the courts. This number of challenges lasted three
many involved two appeals through the association. Ultimately, the final Court of Canada ruled in support of the federal government,
which in turn claimed the $74million saved through the program could be employed to maintain and safeguard the drug program and
to create other innovative drugs obtainable in the province. The definitive study the downstream results of RBP has yet to
be achieved, even though some early outcomes of research is emerging.25
Finally, the assertion is created that decisions are now being made based on drug cost alone (instead of thinking about overall
cost-effectiveness), and therefore are inappropriate. Frequently it’s cost containment inside the drug program that drives formulary
decisions, in isolation of cost reductions that may occur elsewhere within the healthcare system were the drug for use.
This really is another supply of frustration for that industry, that is usually requested to supply economic analyses from the societal
outlook during the outcome of the cool product, simply to have (using their perspective) the societal benefits accruing in
another sector overlooked once the decision is created.
Here's Why Drug Prices in the U.S. Are So High
Nate Brown: Drug prices are high because Americans are easy to take advantage of and enjoy being ripped off.
Tenuk868: Thanks to republicans , well at least we got big tanks
Jazzy Chavis: well that didnt answer any questions at all. but, i appreciate the effort in raising awareness to the greed of the pharmaceuticals industry in the USA. if the same pill is drastically cheaper in a country with a significantly lower gdp (india) than it is in the USA, there is a major problem.\n\nsource: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-29/the-price-keeps-falling-for-a-superstar-gilead-drug-in-india
johnnyboy562: they kinda did…
Hifza ahmed: you're dumb and wrong
birdman33369: ……… So you guys didn't get into lobbyists or how your entire fucking political system is rotten to the core. Google Canadian prices of any drugs you guys are taking. Go ahead, it will show you that this is not a common problem. Research and development my ass!!! Fuck you Bloomberg, go eat a dick with that 'it's complicated' bullshit. You have a failed political process and therefor drug companies are using holding peoples lives randsom to extort all of their money. There; that is all you needed to say.
johnnyboy562: you arent satisfied with bloomberg basically saying pharma companies are being greedy?
peter lee: This is the reason why Americans go to Mexico and Canada to buy prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. steal tons of money from its people and government because the politicians are bought by them. They can do whatever they want and no politicians will do anything about it and the media will lie to the population about the reason why they increase the price of drugs. Everywhere in the world they sell the same medicine we have at a much cheaper price, because they value life over greed.
michael lolo: Look, I understand the medical industry has every right to turn up a profit and that it is ultimately a business. However, we run into ethical issues on just how cutthroat an industry should be when these companies literally handle life and death. We aren't talking about video game console wars or the competitiveness between smartphone companies. Anything within the medical industry deals with peoples health and therefore whether or not they live or die. Just how much power should they have? Just how dangerous and unethical is it to hold peoples lives at ransom? Pay up or die?
root: I wonder how much Bloomberg was paid by big pharma for this pile of bullshit
Robert J. Simpson: Schreli stepped aside as CEO of Turing for PR reasons, full stop. The business model was to identify off-patent drugs that are a necessary component for treating rare condition, and which were manufactured and distributed to hospitals and hospitals by one company. Daraprim (one of two or three drugs used in combination to treat rare infections seen primarily in immunocompromised patients, such as patients suffering from AIDS) was no longer patentable, only one pharmaceutical company had bothered to get FDA approval to make and distribute Daraprim. Schreli's company, Turing, paid good money to purchase the pharmaceutical company still making and selling Daraprim, which was not an especially profitable drug or company, but not before convincing the company to imolement a "closed distribution system", essentially a system through which Daraprim was no longer sold to all the various chains and local pharmacies, instead it could only be purchased through one centralized pharmacy who would upon receipt of the prescription for Daraprim then courier the medication to the customer. At the same time, just prior to acquiring the pharmaceutical company, Turing donated about a million dollars to a "copay" charity.\n\nTuring's business plan, which has become very profitable, was then executed: they bought the company, then increased the price of Daraprim by 5000%. They have been able to keep other generic drug makers out of the market because any competing generic drug pharmaceutical company must perform certain tests on Daraprim and develop a manufacturing process to produce a generic that is "bioequivalent" to Daraprim – essentially, the generic drug company must show the FDA that their version of Daraprim works equally as well. To accomplish this, a competing generic company needs to legally acquire a large quantity of Daraprim pills (generic name: pyrimethamine) from Turing, but Turing has made it this extraordinary difficult for competitors because of Daraprim's tight, centrally controlled distribution system. So Turing has been able to keep a generic drug version of Daraprim from being developed even though Daraprim (pyrimethamine) is unpatented.\n\nTuring was able to radically raise the price of Daraprim because it remained the sole source of the medication and because their are no alternative medications that can be substitute for Daraprim – the demand for Daraprim is said to be "inelastic" (i.e. the demand for the medication remains the same regardless of its price). \n\nBut if a 100 day treatment of an infection such as Toxoplasmosis requires more than pill a day at $750 per pill, who can afford it? As it turns out: everyone. How? Those who are uninsured get a discount or will pay as little as 1$ a pill through Turings financial assistance program. Around 75% of patients get it for $1a pill. Privately insured patients having difficulty meeting their co-pay amount can apply to the co-pay charity that Turing donated to. Patients who are either privately insured (and can meet their co-pay amount), or insured through Medicare or Medicaid have their drug benefit insurance pay the whole $750 per pill. \n\nIn the final analysis, inspite of Daraprim's hugh cost (which might average around $100 000 for a course of treatment), that the drug (pyrimethamine) is off-patent and the fact that 75% of its medication is basically given away, Turing earns good profit for the following three reasons:\n1) Daraprim's inelastic demand.\n2) Its controlled distribution system prevents generic drug companies from getting a supply of Daraprim to conduct the studies and develop a manufacturing process of a bioequivalent generic, as required by FDA rules.\n3) Private drug benefit plans and those associated with Medicare and Medicaid pay the full price: $750/pill.
pointlessfailure: This what I like to call The Mr. Burns Syndrome; exploiting people when they need help the most. Sooner or later they'll block out the sun so we have to pay outrageous prices for electricity.
Santiago Nigro: Is the 13.5$ to 750$/pill raise real? It's an HIV drug for God's sake
Chris Carroll: Well this is a pos job of journalism, no reports of all executive pay as well as how much big investment firms made off of the profits of scumbag pharma groups that factor into the costs of medications as well as the narrow mindedness of investors who don't see or refuse to see how the maximize profit motive affects average Americans. So sad Bloomberg news, you are pathetic
BullwinkleFFMn: 2:24 just to say: greed ? i guess we all knew that before we clicked on the video.