I am unfamiliar with Medicare or in fact the US health system, but an example of “By negotiating ‘on behalf of us’ the government has the most negotiating power possible and hence should be able to get the best prices.” would perhaps be the Pharmac scheme operated here in NZ? Basically, the government assigns $x to Pharmac who negotiate deals with pharma providers. The drugs bought by Pharmac are available to public at considerable subsidy. The losers can still attempt to sell their drug (not excluded from market) but will have to convince the public their version of the drug is “better” (and do so without breaking advertizing laws on false claims). Obviously what get subsidized is supposedly based on maximum QALYs for $$, but a there is a lot of lobbying which I hope is unsuccessful.
Maybe I am being naive, but surely it should be possible to quantify a countries health outcomes and costs and empirically determine what policies work best (health outcomes/$$) rather than deciding on ideological grounds.
It should be very possible, and many countries seem to manage it, but in the US the federal government essentially banned Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating on drug prices.
I dont suppose that would have anything to do with donations from Pharma by any chance? When the TPP free trade agreement was being negotiated, one of the concerns here was that US would insist on Pharmac being demolished
I am unfamiliar with Medicare or in fact the US health system, but an example of “By negotiating ‘on behalf of us’ the government has the most negotiating power possible and hence should be able to get the best prices.” would perhaps be the Pharmac scheme operated here in NZ? Basically, the government assigns $x to Pharmac who negotiate deals with pharma providers. The drugs bought by Pharmac are available to public at considerable subsidy. The losers can still attempt to sell their drug (not excluded from market) but will have to convince the public their version of the drug is “better” (and do so without breaking advertizing laws on false claims). Obviously what get subsidized is supposedly based on maximum QALYs for $$, but a there is a lot of lobbying which I hope is unsuccessful.
Maybe I am being naive, but surely it should be possible to quantify a countries health outcomes and costs and empirically determine what policies work best (health outcomes/$$) rather than deciding on ideological grounds.
It should be very possible, and many countries seem to manage it, but in the US the federal government essentially banned Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating on drug prices.
I dont suppose that would have anything to do with donations from Pharma by any chance? When the TPP free trade agreement was being negotiated, one of the concerns here was that US would insist on Pharmac being demolished