Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockholders than on R&D

Re:Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockho... by tfourb on Saturday February 17, 2024 @02:06AM (#39407123)

Health systems in other (comparable) countries, where drug prices are centrally negotiated or outright set by government committees are vastly more efficient in terms of cost and generally produce better results in terms of health outcomes.

I.e. in my native Germany, health expenditure per capita is 2/3 of what it is in the U.S. if faced with a life-threatening illness, I would vastly prefer to be in Germany than in the U.S. (with the possible exception of being super-rich and being able to buy top-of-the-line health care).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockho... by snowpid on Saturday February 17, 2024 @04:11AM (#39407784)

This is still not a centralised system. There are still prices. Just the negjator is the public health system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockho... by sofixa on Saturday February 17, 2024 @09:36AM (#39409764)

"This is not centralised, there's just one single central entity that negotiates"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockho... by tfourb on Saturday February 17, 2024 @11:40AM (#39411022)

that's not really a contradiction to what I wrote above. The point of having one central negotiator is that this negotiator has a lot more leverage, because they control the demand of an entire market. If I tell a drug company, that they can sell me drug A for $X per dose or not sell any of drug A at all, you can except a lot more pressure on prices compared to negotiating only for one insurance plan among dozens.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockho... by nitwit005 on Saturday February 17, 2024 @10:29PM (#39415912)

Even the USSR had prices, and used them in it's planning.

[ Parent | on HN ]