This action taken by the government into the investigation of the monopoly of EpiPens has uncovered that Mylan has been misclassifying the EpiPens for years. Mylan was supposed to classify EpiPen as a single source (meaning brand name drug) which would require them to provide Medicaid rebate of 23.1% of the cost and inflation rebate, but instead they classified it as a generic version of a drug which only requires 13% Medicaid rebate of the cost and no inflation rebate (Mole). This may cause the government to give Mylan penalties, and it may cause the government to make claims on sales. The government is penalizing and criticizing Mylan for using the system incorrectly, and the government is supporting generic versions of EpiPens and different brands to come to the United States to stop the monopoly and increase competition. Although some patent laws created by the government have created an epinephrine auto-injector monopoly in the United States, the government is working now to eliminate this monopoly and penalize Mylan for using it to its
The industry originated from two different sources, which were research labs that came from chemical and dye companies that discovered medical applications for products that started in the 1880s they made and apothecaries and drug suppliers that moved into wholesale production in the 19th century. (2) As the scientific fields of pharmaceutical chemistry and pharmacology was being developed, the combination of the two different types of firms occurred. Pharmaceutical firms in 1880s in Germany also established relationships with academic labs and due to the result of “exchange of research methods and findings drove a focus dyes, immune antibodies and other physiologically active agents that would react with disease-causing organisms.”
Corporations have helped shape the evolution of the clinical functions. Example: Health Insurance – was first introduced in the 1920’s through private health insurance plan. The insurance paid for high cost surgeries and complex interventions that where provided by the hospitals. Cost were shared by everyone enrolled in the plan.
Alex Bugeja G. Goshulak AP/POLS 2100 Introduction to Canadian Politics 5 June 2024 Understanding Pharmacare and its Opponents Introduction Should a government pay to keep its citizens healthy? While this question seems oversimplified, it is at the core of Canada’s increasingly relevant national debate on pharmacare. When compared to other countries that fund healthcare publicly, we are the only country in the world that funds public healthcare without also publicly financing prescription drugs, A.K.A. Pharmacare (Advisory Council 2019). It is debated among political scientists and regular Canadians alike whether it is the responsibility of the Government to fund pharmacare; while both sides of this debate have equally valid and relevant arguments,
Drug companies like Perdue, Cephalon, and Insys are focused more on marketing than patient care. It is alarming that these companies would rather push sales however possible and risk consequences like being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. Something that really stood out to me was when the ex Insys employee spoke about what she and the company did by saying “uh huh” to when they were asked if a patient had cancer in order to not only push the sales of their drug(s) but to get insurance companies to pay for it (Oliver). In addition, if money is more important than the well being of others for these companies, how many more are just like them?
It also affect the use of resources like the ambulance and the painkillers I would be given could have been given to another person who is injured from serious
The physician also risks not getting paid by the insurance company if they do not administer the less expensive treatment. This conflict could also be
Pros: Providers are incentivized to improve their quality of service. In theory, since doctors are paid per procedure
Pharmaceutical companies have trade in health - a basic need and ideally a basic right for all people. Apparently, the work of investors who have come up with possible cures for terminal illnesses like cancer, AIDS etc., poses a serious threat to the position and financials of large pharmaceutical companies. Having two main influence levers - money and connections – drug companies can easily get their voices heard within political arenas, because economic and political interests are always entangled. Pfizer is one of the top most powerful political lobbyist of the pharmaceutical industry (see Exhibit 1), and it is constantly using this power to influence the making of regulations, laws and policies. The network of influence is very broad: Pfizer
Despite increased debate, employers, who are a key stakeholder and drug coverage provider through employee benefit plans, have been largely absent from national debate. Given the rising costs of prescription drugs, employers are increasingly concerned about the future of private coverage. That said, employers continue to fund benefits, as they believe they offer a competitive advantage in recruitment, maintain wellness and support a productive workforce, and assist in preventing long-term disability. As costs have increased, employers’ views are converging with those of government, including, a shift in focus to outcomes and creation of mechanisms to measure impact of spending for sustainability.
Every citizen in the United States has individual rights protected by the Constitution. This protection also includes businesses that have gone through the legal process to become a legal entity ; more commonly known as becoming a corporation. Many times these individual rights, protected by the Constitution, conflict with the common good and as history shows, the courts consistently side with the common good when faced with a case that pits these two against each other. Big Pharma are corporations exercising their individual rights to market, and sell their product to consumers. In the process, the common good is suffering.
According to a Social Security report, the national average wage was $48,098 in 2014 (Social Security, n.d.). The average American earns less than 1% of a CEO. An article by Shana Lynch, explains that Americans “thought CEOs earned nearly $1 million, whereas the real average is about $10 million” (Lynch, 2016). The debate over CEO compensation has been widely discussed in terms of ethics and if a CEO is overpaid. CEO’s can be compensated for their work by a salary, bonuses, and stock options.
If this happens, the patient could feel threatened, standoffish, uncomfortable,
Great post. It is true that health care organization should develop strategies to retain skilled and experienced health care professionals in order to remain highly competitive. But the fact is that such caliber of professionals cannot be retained for life due to certain uncontrollable factors, such as aging. According to Alliance for Health Reform (2011), 40% of practicing physicians are older than 55yrs and one-third of the nursing workforce is over the age 50. This means that in the next five years this group of health care professional will be retiring.
I believe that public is able to make its own choices and decisions. There are many questionable issues about food quality but consumers have a choice which food to buy and eat, and which food to avoid. Why not let them to decide which medication to take? Medications’ cost in the USA is high, and there are no competitors present. As we know, the market competition
