Last Updated on February 5, 2022
A war raged on social media after a company announced a drug price hike; after that war, the company may have changed its mind.
Imagine for a moment fighting a parasitic infection with medicine that costs about $13.50 per pill. If you only have to take one of those pills per day, you’re looking at $405 per month before insurance kicks in and does whatever it’s going to do.
But then imagine the drug maker decides to increase the price of that same medication. Not to $10 per pill, or even $25.
No, this increase skyrockets the price from $750 per pill. Your monthly prescription just shot up to $22,500 per month. If the cancer didn’t get you, the pharmacy bill just might.
That’s what happened when a company decided it wasn’t making a sufficient profit on a particular medication. The drug, Daraprim, fights toxoplasmosis, which can be particularly dangerous for people who have weakened immune systems, like AIDS patients, as well as for pregnant women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Yes, I’m sure some of you Bible thumpers out there saw “AIDS patients” and lost interest. But have a second look: it could also affect pregnant women. About 200,000 cases of congenital toxoplasmosis, which means a baby is infected through its mother, occur every year. And if you’re ever treated for cancer, your immune system might wind up being compromised during the treatment regimen.
The parasite that causes the condition, Toxoplasma gondii, is one of the most common parasites in developed countries.
Enter the power of social media. (And a lot of really bad P.R.!)
After a war of words on Twitter, the company — and the CEO that was the direct target of the social media dialog — announced the company would “roll back” the price, stopping short of saying by how much.
Some friends of mine on the conservative side defended the CEO and the company, saying they have every right to make a profit on a product they sell and it shouldn’t be up to anyone else — particularly the government — to decide how much profit is “enough” profit.
Some friends of mine on the liberal side compared this scenario to Dr. Jonas Salk, a medical researcher and virologist who accepted an appointment with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and began working on a vaccine to prevent polio. His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit.
Salk, of course, was not the CEO of a company that owned the polio vaccine and, therefore, never had to report to a board of directors or angry stockholders. On the other hand, the CEO of the maker of Daraprim is out to make a profit. That’s his job.
The real question here is simple: what’s the alternative?
Not every university’s school of medicine can fund the development of “miracle drugs” created by people who are so selfless in their endeavors to help the general populace.
Where does that money come from?
One of the central themes of the opponents of Obamacare is that they want the government out of health care. That, then, forces it into the hands of the private sector, meaning that those who hate government involvement had better hope a drug they one day need to stay alive never winds up on the red side of a business ledger; though if it does, they’d hardly have a right to complain if their “miracle drug” shot up beyond their reach.
Then there’s the insurance company that muddies the waters. The price of prescription drugs are inflated so that people with less insurance often pay more, while those with better insurance pay less. But in the background, as they pay more for the better insurance, the insurance companies get discounts on the amount they have to pay.
Follow the money and you’ll get confused pretty quickly when you see all the forks in the roads.
So what’s the answer?
Do we set maximum prices for drugs? If so, how do we prevent the private sector drug makers from deciding not to even attempt to find treatments or cures for some ailments out of fear that they’ll never recoup the research and development costs?
Do we encourage more academic or public drug research and development? If so, where does the funding for that come from?
Money may be the root of all evil, but it’s also the key ingredient in any medication.
It has to come from somewhere.
So where do we find it to make our national health care better? Any ideas?
