An opinion piece titled “Drug Price Controls Hurt Investment in New Medicines” in the (Dec. 14) Herald made some interesting points regarding the federal government’s efforts to mitigate the ever-rising cost of prescription drugs.
Basically, the writer’s arguments against such moves are that pharmaceutical companies rely on revenues generated from the sale of these drugs to finance the substantial costs associated to research, development and testing of new and ever more effective medicines.
Another reason to not control by government fiat the price of drugs is that pharmaceutical companies have investors who invest in the research/development to seek returns on their investment.
Mandated drug pricing would dissuade future investment as returns on same might be dramatically reduced.
The writer laments “what the next chapter looks like if Congress doesn’t recognize the importance of relying on insurance — rather than price controls — to solve affordability and keep investors engaged”
Medical insurance, already straining the budgets of most Americans, does not appear to be a straightforward solution. Insurance companies are commercial, profit-motivated business that have both shareholders and investors. If, as the writer suggests, Congress looks to insurers alone, rather that drug makers, to continually absorb the very high costs of many drugs then what’s an insurer to do but raise premiums so as to keep shareholders and investors engaged.
Solving the conundrum of achieving affordable drug pricing cannot be a ‘pass the buck to the next in line’ resolution.
Alan Gaudio, Doylestown
Join our readers whose generous donations are making it possible for you to read our news coverage. Help keep local journalism alive and our community strong. Donate today.
