DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Expensive without the results: Health care in the U.S. costs the most, not the best i

**VipInoLo** · 05-09-2009, 08:15 AM

More competition with drugs. IT should not cost $1billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The patent period is too long, the FDA process is ridiculous.
IF you want to lower the price of anything that is not a natural resource,
just introduce more free market competition, it works everytime.

Or perhaps MORE governmental regulation is necessary to ensure that the pharmaceutical companies don't gouge the public:

In many non-US western countries a 'fourth hurdle' of cost effectiveness analysis has developed before new technologies can be provided. This focuses on the efficiency (in terms of the cost per QALY) of the technologies in question rather than their efficacy. In England NICE approval is required before technologies can be adopted by the NHS, whilst similar arrangements exist with the Scottish Medical Consortium in Scotland and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. A product must pass the threshold for cost-effectiveness if it is to be approved. Treatments must represent 'value for money' and a net benefit to society. There is much speculation that a NICE style framework may be implemented in the USA to ensure Medicare and Medicaid spending is focused to maximise benefit to patients and not excessive profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

05-09-2009, 08:15 AM	#12
VipInoLo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	More competition with drugs. IT should not cost $1billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. The patent period is too long, the FDA process is ridiculous. IF you want to lower the price of anything that is not a natural resource, just introduce more free market competition, it works everytime. Or perhaps MORE governmental regulation is necessary to ensure that the pharmaceutical companies don't gouge the public: In many non-US western countries a 'fourth hurdle' of cost effectiveness analysis has developed before new technologies can be provided. This focuses on the efficiency (in terms of the cost per QALY) of the technologies in question rather than their efficacy. In England NICE approval is required before technologies can be adopted by the NHS, whilst similar arrangements exist with the Scottish Medical Consortium in Scotland and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. A product must pass the threshold for cost-effectiveness if it is to be approved. Treatments must represent 'value for money' and a net benefit to society. There is much speculation that a NICE style framework may be implemented in the USA to ensure Medicare and Medicaid spending is focused to maximise benefit to patients and not excessive profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
	Quote