大型制药公司在高管和股东身上的支出比在研发上的支出多出数十亿美元
Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockholders than on R&D

原始链接: https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/big-pharma-spends-billions-more-on-executives-and-stockholders-than-on-rd/

摘要:参议院健康、教育、劳工和养老金委员会最近的一项调查显示,与投资于丰厚的高管薪酬方案相比,美国大型制药公司在研发 (R&D) 上的支出明显减少,股东 股息和股票回购计划。 这些支出每年约为 20 亿美元。 虽然一些人指责被称为药品福利管理者 (PBM) 的中间商抬高了药品成本,但参议院的一份报告强调,根本原因在于制药商的贪婪和专利游戏,这使得药品制造商能够延长独家垄断。 尽管声称通过与保险公司和药房谈判来确定消费者价格,但 PBM 只控制了相对较小的部分药品支出。 与此同时,报告显示,美国消费者为处方药支付的费用几乎是全球其他国家的三倍,导致数百万美国人难以承担药物费用。 然而,强大的贸易团体反对将美国药品价格与国际同行进行比较,因为在美国获得药品的范围更广、更快捷。

针对美国药品价格昂贵的言论,造成这种局面的一个关键因素是其破碎的政治体制。 政治资金,特别是来自包括大型制药公司在内的各行业大公司的政治资金,对政策和立法者产生了重大影响。 因此,制药公司能够在美国收取更高的费用,因为缺乏充分的理由不这样做,而且机制薄弱阻止他们这样做。 为了解决这个问题,可能有必要对政治资金和竞选资金进行重大改变,并对政治捐款实行更严格的限制。 然而,如果缺乏有具体目标的领导层,或者加强对游说和企业俘获的限制,情况不会有什么改变。 此外,从事实际药物发现工作的科学家的努力需要得到充分的认可。 与此同时,本届政府的显着成就为渐进式变革带来了希望。 在决策过程中考虑长期后果而不是将其视为临时解决方案至关重要。 最后,应该探索成功的替代方法和路径,承认由人口趋势、过去的选举结果和政治学知识驱动的系统思维对于未来的国会选举至关重要。 相反,表达某些观点或倡导特定意识形态的个人可能会面临特定群体的排斥或诽谤,从而限制有效的对话和辩论。 最终,解决药品高成本问题需要了解并解决导致这一问题的潜在政治因素。
相关文章

原文
Big Pharma spends billions more on executives and stockholders than on R&D

When big pharmaceutical companies are confronted over their exorbitant pricing of prescription drugs in the US, they often retreat to two well-worn arguments: One, that the high drug prices cover costs of researching and developing new drugs, a risky and expensive endeavor, and two, that middle managers—pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), to be specific—are actually the ones price gouging Americans.

Both of these arguments faced substantial blows in a hearing Thursday held by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In fact, pharmaceutical companies are spending billions of dollars more on lavish executive compensation, dividends, and stock buyouts than they spend on research and development (R&D) for new drugs, Sanders pointed out. "In other words, these companies are spending more to enrich their own stockholders and CEOs than they are in finding new cures and new treatments," he said.

And, while PBMs certainly contribute to America's uniquely astronomical drug pricing, their profiteering accounts for a small fraction of the massive drug market, Sanders and an expert panelist noted. PBMs work as shadowy middle managers between drugmakers, insurers, and pharmacies, setting drug formularies and consumer prices, and negotiating rebates and discounts behind the scenes. Though PBMs practices contribute to overall costs, they pale compared to pharmaceutical profits.

Rather, the heart of the problem, according to a Senate report released earlier this week, is pharmaceutical greed, patent gaming that allows drug makers to stretch out monopolies, and powerful lobbying.

On Thursday, the Senate committee gathered the CEOs of three behemoth pharmaceutical companies to question them on the drug pricing practices: Robert Davis of Merck, Joaquin Duato of Johnson & Johnson, and Chris Boerner of Bristol Myers Squibb.

"We are aware of the many important lifesaving drugs that your companies have produced, and that's extraordinarily important," Sanders said before questioning the CEOs. "But, I think, as all of you know, those drugs mean nothing to anybody who cannot afford it."

Sanders called drug pricing in the US "outrageous," noting that Americans spend by far the most for prescription drugs in the world. A report this month by the US Department of Health and Human Services found that in 2022, US prices across all brand-name and generic drugs were nearly three times as high as prices in 33 other wealthy countries. That means that for every dollar paid in other countries for prescription drugs, Americans paid $2.78. And that gap is widening over time.

Focusing on drugs from the three companies represented at the hearing (J&J, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb), the Senate report looked at how initial prices for new drugs entering the US market have skyrocketed over the past two decades. The analysis found that from 2004 to 2008, the median launch price of innovative prescription drugs sold by J&J, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb was over $14,000. But, over the past five years, the median launch price was over $238,000. Those numbers account for inflation.

The report focused on high-profit drugs from each of the drug makers. Merck's Keytruda, a cancer drug, costs $191,000 a year in the US, but is just $91,000 in France and $44,000 in Japan. J&J's HIV drug, Symtuza, is $56,000 in the US, but only $14,000 in Canada. And Bristol Myers Squibb's Eliquis, used to prevent strokes, costs $7,100 in the US, but $760 in the UK and $900 in Canada.

Sanders asked Bristol Myers Squibb's CEO Boerner if the company would "reduce the list price of Eliquis in the United States to the price that you charge in Canada, where you make a profit?" Boerner replied that "we can’t make that commitment primarily because the prices in these two countries have very different systems."

The powerful pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA, published a blog post before the hearing saying that comparing US drug prices to prices in other countries "hurts patients." The group argued that Americans have broader, faster access to drugs than people in other countries.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com