1194
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

“This was an unexpected victory in a long fight against an illegal cartel of three corporations who have raised their insulin prices in lockstep.”

The Biden Administration pleasantly stunned health care reform advocates Tuesday by including short-acting insulin in its list of 10 drugs for which Medicare will negotiate lower prices, power vested in the White House by the Inflation Reduction Act.

The IRA was passed in the face of one of the heftiest barrages of lobbying in congressional history, with the pharmaceutical industry spending more than $700 million over 2021 and 2022 — several times more than the second- and third-ranking industries — much of it aimed at stopping the legislation, watering it down, or undermining its implementation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SteveJobs@lemmy.world 149 points 1 year ago

The pharmaceutical industry spent $700 million lobbying against this? What a bunch of assholes.

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago

And they’ve already filed lawsuits:

The suits make similar and overlapping claims that Medicare negotiations are unconstitutional.

The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.

The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.

They also contend that the talks violate the Eighth Amendment by levying an excessive fine if drugmakers refuse to engage in the process.

Just ridiculous.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/29/10-drugs-to-face-medicare-price-negotiations-see-the-list.html

[-] Ertebolle@kbin.social 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A great way to tell that a business is making way too much money is when they can afford to hire monkey cages full of lawyers to fling every terrible legal argument they can think of at you in the hope that one of them somehow sticks.

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

It is more cynical than that. They want to out spend the resources available to fight them, not win a legal case.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I don't think they're going to outspend the federal government though.

It's not a cruise missile, there are limits.

Especially when they already own half the Senate.

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

They don't need to. They need to outspend the specific attorney's dept. Plus, many are counting on a change in administration before any consequences of merit.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

One thing that bothers me about the law. This kinda thing. There should be some sorta limit on how many arguments you can present. Multiple bad arguments does not equal a solid one.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

And yet in every other country where they have to bargain against a centralized healthcare system, they are able to provide a decent price.

The US needs to take decisive action against these sociopaths.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 13 points 1 year ago
[-] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Import of French negotiation technology.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.

It will be interesting to watch this shake out, because this decision could have a lot of knock-off effects when it comes to further price negotiations by the government across a wide array of sectors.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

"Below market rate"

If only looking at the USA where pharmaceutical companies are free to do as they please, but probably still higher than in any other rich countries in the world.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah I think that's going to end up being a pivotal distinction here, as these are companies with global reach and thus "market rate" will be a difficult concept to defend.

Exclusivity contracts would be one thing, but suggesting this is an egregious step by the US government is going to be a difficult case to prove imo.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Their proof will be with "vacations" etc for the judges sitting the trial.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Charge what they please. They are heavily regulated in what they can do. Which is why stuff like the J&J arsenic event is a once a decade thing vs a constant thing.

[-] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

They likely are subsidized by the federal government anyway. As far as I'm concerned, any time the government gives money to a corporation, they're no longer a private company until they pay it back.

[-] blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Market rates aren't reasonable compensation.

[-] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Just reading this it looks like they had this in their back pocket for a while lol

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, lawyers start preparing these lawsuits as soon as an announcement is made (in this case the legislation being announced). They just don't file them until absolutely necessary.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

At this point the first amendment is just their catchall for any time they want to stop the government doing something, isnt it? Selling drugs isnt speech, making cakes or websites isn't speech, you fucking monsters don't have to like it and you don't have to pretend to like it, you just have to stop destroying people for money.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.

Sure Jan. 🙄

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But doesn't medicare already negotiate prescription drug prices? Or am I thinking of something else?

load more comments (15 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1194 points (99.6% liked)

News

23259 readers
3367 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS