Prescription drug prices in the United States is notoriously higher than in other high-income countries. Unlike in other countries, the US government is not direct set or negotiating drug prices. In contrast, US drug companies set their own prices, but insurance companies and pharmacies determine how much patients actually pay themselves.

Critic of US pharmaceutical company drug price inflation claim that the pharmaceutical industry benefits from vulnerable patients. Pharmaceutical companies, however, against drug price reforms and argue that lowering the cost of prescription drugs will stifle innovation, ultimately leading to fewer options for patients.

Reducing costs can slow new drug development, but research recommend that slow innovation may not have a significant negative effect on patient health. Recently article researchers found that of 46 new drugs approved in the United States in 2017, 17 provided no or little additional benefit when compared to drugs on the market. Reducing costs may not be necessary get in the way innovation, because the UK and Canada enjoy low drug prices and innovative and profitable pharmaceutical companies.

Society owns researched prescription drug costs over the years, but trying Graduated Drug charge laws have largely failed. Only the COVID-19 pandemic made worse situations like those of the law stopped, the use of prescription drugs has rise up, and the price of prescription drugs increased. In June, the pharmaceutical company Gilead Science set price Remdesivir–The first drug approved to treat COVID-19 – is priced at $ 3,120 per treatment for privately insured patients, although health insurance can lower self-incurred costs for patients. Fee once again triggered criticism of US pricing methods, though Institute for Clinical and Economic Review counted that Remdesivir can be cost-effective for insurance companies even if it costs $ 5,080 per treatment.

This Saturday week seminar focuses on managing drug costs in the United States.

• The United States is ineffective in dealing with rising drug prices, William Padula from University of Southern California argue in a article To Journal of Health Care Law and Policy. He confirms that the absence of a unified national approach to tackling drug prices has created a patchwork of state legislation. Padula argue that the state regulatory approach makes it easier for the pharmaceutical industry to do so file a case against anti-price gouging laws. Padula note that while bipartisan support exists for drug price regulation, any unified change will “ultimately continue to depend on federal action.”
• The biopharmaceutical industry has former claims void-for-obscurity – which challenge laws intended to regulate drug prices by arguing that terms such as “exaggerated” or “unreasonable” are ambiguous – to attack drug price regulation and anti-grafting laws. In a article To Northwestern University Law Review, Michelle Mello from Stanford Law School and Rebecca Wolitz, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Discuss how state and federal drug pricing laws can survive this vacuum-for-obscurity by looking to other areas of the law. Mello and Wolitz conclude that borrowing the standard of what is meant by “unreasonable” or “exaggerated” rates in consumer loan laws, which have withstood industry challenges, may be the most appropriate model for guiding future state and federal regulation.
• In a learn published on Journal of the American Medical Association, University of Southern California Martha S. Ryan and Neeraj Sood analyze how legislators can improve price transparency throughout the drug supply chain. Even though the state recently passed many new transparency laws, Ryan and Sood conclude that most existing laws are “insufficient to reveal the true transaction price”. They Find it that there is no state law that creates price transparency throughout the supply chain. In order for drug pricing legislation to be effective, they are recommend laws that require all supply chain participants to report true prices, including discounts and rebates.
• Current regulatory policies fail to foster transparency and price negotiations, which allow pharmaceutical manufacturers to “charge whatever they like”, University of California San Francisco Nisarg A. Patel argue. In a article published on Journal of Law and Bioscience, he urged Congress to create an “independent drug review board” that would use clinical trial results to recommend base drug prices. Patel recommend that review boards can analyze drug efficacy data to determine the value of drugs relative to their competitors’ products. Based on that data, the board can adjust recommended drug prices over time.
• In a article published on Minnesota Legal Review, Rachel E. Sachs from Washington University at St’s Law School. Louis check the relationship between insurance reimbursement and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and how these two systems are “tightly linked by law” and ultimately impact the cost of prescription drugs. Sachs consider three potential effects of delinking insurance reimbursement systems and FDA approval. First, if the two are separated, Sachs argue, access to certain drugs is likely to decrease as insurance companies no longer have to cover all or most of the FDA-approved drugs. Second, Sachs claim that removing links would encourage more thorough research and more transparent drug costs as drug companies have to prove to insurance companies that their product is justified. Finally, Sachs confirms that delinking will ultimately reduce drug costs because insurers will have more information and negotiating power.
• In a article to Health Affairs, Sean Dickson and Timothy A. Lash from Western Health proposes a “domestic reference price approach” for setting new drug prices. Using the drug Remdesivir as a case in point, they are rate historical price data for similar drugs released in the United States and adjusting prices for inflation to determine the most reasonable price of remdesivir. Dickson and Lash then model benefits of Remdesivir at different price points based on estimates of revenue, production costs, and research costs. Acknowledging that their model may not fully value innovative drugs, they are argue that the manufacturer can still prove that their product is worth more than the domestic reference indicates. Dickson and Lash conclude that the domestic reference pricing approach would lead to savings by hindering the ability of pharmaceutical companies to set their own prices.