The Case Against Clinton’s Plan to Control Drug Costs

“When critics complain about the high cost of a prescription drug, drug makers tend to have two main defenses. One is that developing drugs is an expensive, risky endeavor, and so companies need high prices to cover the cost of medical research. The second is that their products bring value by improving health and wellness, and the companies should be rewarded for those public benefits,” the New York Times reports.

“Hillary Rodham Clinton is unveiling her proposal to lower drug costs Tuesday, and she has taken aim squarely at that first defense: If companies really need high prices to spend it on science, then they should be required to spend a set amount of their revenue on research and development costs. She proposes requiring that any additional drug company revenue be plowed back into government research for new therapies. The proposal would apply to any drug company that benefits from federal support — which would mean most of them.”

3 Comments

  1. What I find curious about high drug prices is that they are high mainly just here in the U.S. Cross a border into Canada or Mexico, and suddenly that same drug plummets in price. Why?

    Even if one were to assume that a high price somewhere is justified, why must it always be U.S. consumers who pay it? Especially when, as this blurb acknowledges, American taxpayers also subsidize pharmaceutical research by the billions?

Comments are closed.