在欧洲20美元的药物需要处方,在美国需要800美元。
A $20 drug in Europe requires a prescription and $800 in the U.S.

原始链接: https://www.statnews.com/2025/10/31/why-miebo-costs-40-times-more-than-its-european-version/

## 药品定价差异:米博案例 一个鲜明的例子是米博,一种治疗干眼的药物。在欧洲可以非处方药购买,价格约为20美元(以EvoTears销售),而在美国,同样的药物作为处方药销售,价格高达800美元以上。有人成功地从欧洲药房在线购买到该药,价格为32美元,凸显了巨大的价格差异。 这并非个例;美国的处方药价格平均比其他发达国家高2.5倍。Bausch & Lomb 战略性地寻求FDA将其作为处方药批准——尽管在其他地方是OTC药物——以利用专利保护和最大化利润,米博2024年的销售额超过1.72亿美元。 批评人士认为这是价格欺诈,该公司此前在其前身Valeant时期也曾使用过这种策略。Bausch & Lomb 为其定价辩护,理由是获得FDA批准所需的广泛临床试验,但专家认为,该药物在欧洲已经确立的安全记录应该使其在美国获得OTC地位。 提出的解决方案包括要求FDA在批准药物作为处方药之前考虑国际OTC批准,并对米博等案例进行追溯审查,最终将患者的可及性置于公司利润之上。

## 美国药品定价与市场问题 - 摘要 在欧洲容易以20美元购买的药物,在美国需要处方且最初定价为800美元,引发了Hacker News的讨论。然而,实际成本远比这复杂。虽然“标价”是为了与保险公司谈判而定的高价,但“储蓄卡”和共付计划通常能使有保险的个人自付费用降至0美元——尽管现金价格仍然是225美元。 评论员认为高价是由于严格的FDA法规造成的,这些法规要求昂贵的药品新申请(成本从数亿到数十亿美元不等),从而有效地为更便宜的非处方药设置了进入壁垒。这种情况被批评为一种卡夫卡式的系统,优先考虑利润而非患者的可及性。 人们也对该药物的成分(PFAS)和潜在的健康影响表示担忧,以及对美国医疗市场和不受监管的资本主义在推高成本方面所扮演的角色提出了更广泛的批评。一些人认为真正的自由市场*应该*导致更低的价格,而另一些人则指出缺乏竞争和潜在的垄断是关键问题。
相关文章

原文

A month’s supply of Miebo, Bausch & Lomb’s prescription dry eye drug, costs $800 or more in the U.S. before insurance. But the same drug — sold as EvoTears — has been available over-the-counter (OTC) in Europe since 2015 for about $20. I ordered it online from an overseas pharmacy for $32 including shipping, and it was delivered in a week. 

This is, of course, both shocking and unsurprising. A 2021 RAND study found U.S. prescription drug prices are, on average, more than 2.5 times higher than in 32 other developed nations. Miebo exemplifies how some pharmaceutical companies exploit regulatory loopholes and patent protections, prioritizing profits over patients, eroding trust in health care. But there is a way to fix this loophole.

In December 2019, Bausch & Lomb, formerly a division of Valeant, acquired the exclusive license for the commercialization and development in the United States and Canada for NOV03, now called Miebo in the U.S. Rather than getting an approval for an OTC drug, like it is in Europe, Bausch secured U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval as a prescription medication, subsequently pricing it at a high level. Currently, according to GoodRx, a monthly supply of Miebo will cost $830.27 at Walgreens, and it’s listed at $818.38 on Amazon Pharmacy.

The strategy has paid off: Miebo’s 2024 sales — its first full year — hit $172 million, surpassing the company’s projections of $95 million. The company now forecasts sales to exceed $500 million annually. At European prices, those sales would be less than $20 million. Emboldened with Miebo’s early success, Bausch & Lomb raised the price another 4% in 2025, according to the drug price tracking firm 46brooklyn.

Bausch & Lomb has a track record of prioritizing profits over patients. As Valeant, its business model was simple: buy, gut, gouge, repeat. In 2015, it raised prices for Nitropress and Isuprel by over 200% and 500%, respectively, triggering a 2016 congressional hearing. Despite promises of reform, little has changed. When he was at Allergan, Bausch & Lomb’s current CEO, Brent Saunders, pledged “responsible pricing” but tried to extend patent protection for Allergan’s drug Restasis (another dry eye drug) through a dubious deal with the Mohawk Indian tribe, later rejected by courts.

Now at Bausch & Lomb, Saunders oversaw Miebo’s launch, claiming earlier this year in an investor call, “We are once again an innovation company.” But finding a way to get an existing European OTC drug to be a prescription drug in the U.S. with a new name and a 40-fold price increase is not true innovation — it’s a price-gouging strategy.

Bausch & Lomb could have pursued OTC approval in the U.S., leveraging its expertise in OTC eye drops and lotions. However, I could not find in transcripts or presentations any evidence that Baush & Lomb seriously pursued this. Prescription status, however, ensures much higher prices, protected by patents and limited competition. Even insured patients feel the ripple effects: Coupons may reduce out-of-pocket costs, but insurers pay hundreds per prescription, driving up premiums and the overall cost of health care for everyone.

In response to questions from STAT about why Miebo is an expensive prescription drug, a representative said in a statement, “The FDA determined that MIEBO acts at the cellular and molecular level of the eye, which meant it had to go through the same rigorous process as any new pharmaceutical — a full New Drug Application. Unlike in Europe, where all medical device eye drops are prescription-free and cleared through a highly predictable and fast pathway, we were required to design, enroll and complete extensive clinical trials involving thousands of patients, and provide detailed safety and efficacy data submissions. Those studies took years and significant investment, but they ensure that MIEBO meets the highest regulatory standards for safety and effectiveness.”

Bausch & Lomb’s carefully worded response expertly sidesteps the real issue. The FDA’s test for OTC status isn’t a drug’s mechanism of action — it’s whether patients can use it safely without a doctor. Miebo’s track record as an OTC product in Europe for nearly a decade shows it meets that standard. Bausch & Lomb provides no evidence, or even assertion, that it ever tried for OTC approval in the U.S. Instead, it pursued the prescription route — not because of regulatory necessity, but as a business strategy to secure patents and command an $800 price. In doing so, B&L is weaponizing a regulatory loophole against American patients, prioritizing profit over access, and leaving their “significant investment” as the cost of monopoly, not medical necessity.

Even if you accept Bausch & Lomb’s self-serving rationale, the answer is not to allow the loophole to persist, but to close it. The FDA could require any drug approved as OTC internationally be considered for OTC status in the United States before greenlighting it as a prescription product — and mandate retroactive review of cases like Miebo.

The FDA’s OTC monograph process, which assesses the safety and efficacy of nonprescription drugs, makes this feasible, though it may need to be adjusted slightly. Those changes might involve incorporating a mechanism to make sure that overseas OTC status triggers a review of U.S. prescription drugs containing the same active ingredients or formulations for potential OTC designation; developing criteria to assess equivalency in safety and efficacy standards between U.S. OTC requirements and those of other countries; and establishing a retroactive review pathway within the monograph process to handle existing prescription drugs already marketed OTC internationally.

EvoTears thrives abroad without safety concerns, countering industry claims of stricter U.S. standards. This reform would deter companies from repackaging OTC drugs as high-cost prescriptions, fostering competition and lowering prices.

While this tactic isn’t widespread, it joins loopholes like late-listed patents, picket fence patents, or pay-for-delay generic deals that undermine trust in an industry whose employees largely aim to save lives.

Miebo also shows how global reference pricing could save billions. Aligning with European prices could cut consumer costs while reducing doctor visits, pharmacy time, and administrative burdens. For patients who skip doses to afford groceries, lower prices would mean better access and health. Reforms like the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare price negotiations set a precedent, but targeted rules are urgently needed.

Unexplained differences in drug prices between the U.S. and other wealthy countries erode the public’s trust in health care. Companies like Bausch & Lomb exploit systemic gaps, leaving patients and payers to foot exorbitant bills. An OTC evaluation rule, with retroactive reviews, is a practical first step, signaling that patient access takes precedence over corporate greed.

Let’s end the price-gouging practices of outliers and build a health care system that puts patients first. Just as targeting criminal outliers fosters a law-abiding society, holding bad pharmaceutical actors accountable is crucial for restoring trust and integrity to our health care system. While broader approaches to making health care more fair, accessible, and affordable are needed, sometimes the way to save billions is to start by saving hundreds of millions.

David Maris is a six-time No. 1 ranked pharmaceutical analyst with more than two decades covering the industry. He currently runs Phalanx Investment Partners, a family office; is a partner in Wall Street Beats; and is co-author of the recently published book “The Fax Club Experiment.” He is currently working on his next book about health care in America.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com