Are Drug Manufacturers the Strongest Lobby In DC?

[oldmantime]

I figure they must be in the top two or three at the very lowest. Elsewise, why do we continually read about lower prescription costs in other countries.

Shamefull!!

 

[SENDITIN]

They're lower for some drugs in other countries due to government price controls and/or subsidies. Some drugs aren't even available for purchase in other countries due to the same reasons...so people come here to purchase.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

I'd have to put tobacco and HMO's ahead of them. Firearms and oil are up there, too. Those are more dependent on which party happens to be in power and the historic help that they've given to whichever lobby.

 

[oldmantime]

Could be right--Except you rarely hear of elderly folks or anyone for that matter going out of the US to buy firearms or tobacco.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

That's true mostly because those groups will do everything in their power to keep those things legal with as little red tape as possible to maximize potential profits.

 

[barman]

I'll need to chase down the cite, but our understanding is that they rank as follows:

1 - Drugs
2 - Oil
3 - Weapons, including Firearms

I would include tobacco as a subset of Drugs.

 

[volhound]

As uncle said, I would think that insurance hmo's would be in the top 3
They are the greatest evil of all the lobbies.
they can take their "denied" rubber stamp and stick in their ass!

 

[Oceans11]

The other industrialised countries have different systems.

Here we pay about $10 for a prescription, that price would apply for a $2 pack of asprin or a $1000 specialist drug.
(so you would bin the prescription if it was for asprin.)

Also, the NHS can cut deals for drugs on a nationwide or 'statewide' basis, to reduce costs.

Some drugs cannot be bought via the UK 'prescription' system, usually new technology/cutting edge stuff for AIDS/Cancer etc.

 

[Shotgun]

Eek, do you believe price controls in a certain country limit the medical research done in that country?

If I ran a drug company, I certainly wouldn't want to waste millions of dollars without the knowledge that I could recoup that investment if my research actually resulted in a profitable drug.

I would also concentrate my efforts on non-vital drugs like Viagra and Levitra in order to limit my liability in case my new breakthrough harmed a few people. Gotta avoid the trial lawyers you know.

 

[Oceans11]

New drugs are a huge risk/return area and will always get investment because of the payback.

If memory serves me, Zantac was the single product that pushed Glaxo into the big time.

The problem at the moment, seems to be the strict approval regulations/environment.
Asprin would fail the present regime, and yet it is a massively useful product.

Then there is the 'sue them' culture if the product causes damage.

Then there is the area of side effects that are medically useful.
http://www.cancerguide.org/rcc_thalidomide.html

It is an area that would benefit from 'limited liability' contracts, where the patients accept 'reasonable risk'.

Both patients and Companies could benefit from that kind of approach, but it would still be up to the legal system to draw the line.

Price controls could be imposed in exchange for extended patent rights etc. Whatever cuts a deal at national level.

 

[bulldog77]

The banking industry has to rank in top 3 if not #1.