What Is The Hsa's Effect On R & D Spending And Price Regulation

There are multiple health concerns worldwide and more and more drugs are needed every day. Many drugs however, are extremely expensive to develop, test, and produce. According to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (2002), it costs up to $802 million to bring a new drug to the market. In 2002, pharmaceutical companies spent $34 billion in research and development (Center-Watch, 2003). In addition to the costs, the overall time from the discovery to approve and market the drug can take up to 15 years.

Pharmaceutical companies are provided with temporary monopoly rights on the production of new drugs which result in a higher cost on consumers. If competing companies were allowed to produce generic forms of those drugs, consumers will be able to afford those medications even in cases where those consumers have no insurance coverage. The company responsible for developing and inventing the original medication could be offered incentives to invent in the future by either obtaining tax breaks or NIH funding for future research. They could even be offered a percentage of the sales of the generic drugs. Economist Gary S. Becker advocates dropping many FDA requirements that, in his opinion, provide no additional safety measures but rather delay the development of new drugs.[12] Betamethasone, for example, has been part of the standard prenatal care in Europe since the late 1970’s while it got adopted in the U.S. after 1997. On many occasions, the FDA ignores all scientific evidence concerning certain drugs because the manufacturer did not follow their mandated bureaucratic standards.

Improvements in health care and life sciences are an important source of gains in health and longevity globally. The development of innovative pharmaceutical products plays a critical role in ensuring these continued gains. To encourage the continued development of new drugs, economic incentives are essential. These incentives are principally provided through direct and indirect government funding, intellectual property laws, and other policies that favor innovation. Without such incentives, private corporations, which bring to market the vast majority of new drugs, would be less able to assume the risks and costs necessary to continue their research and development (R&D). In the United States, government action has focused on creating the environment that would best encourage further innovation and yield a constant flow of new and innovative medicines to the market. The goal has been to ensure that consumers would benefit both from technological breakthroughs and the competition that further innovation generates. The United States also relies on a strong generic pharmaceutical industry to create added competitive pressure to lower drug prices. Recent action by the Administration and Congress has accelerated the flow of generic medicines to the market for precisely that reason. By contrast, in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

This paper will look at the impact of Affordable Care Act on supply and demand in healthcare. The goal is to show if there is equilibrium of supply and demand since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. This has been done by looking at a variety of articles such as The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on the Health Care Workforce. The Affordable Care Act has created provisions to address some of the supply shortages. Through the provision it will take time for the full effects to come to light. This paper will provide valuable information regarding the Affordable Care Act impact on supply and demand.

U.S. based companies hold rights to most of the world’s rights on new medicines and holds thousands of new products currently being developed. As of 2012, the industry helps support almost 3.4 million jobs in the U.S. economy. It is also one of the most heavily R&D based industries in the world. In the United States, the environment for pharmaceuticals is much friendlier than other countries around the world in terms of pricing ability and regulations. Both the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology industries have experienced significant growth in the past year with year-over-year increases of 13.02% and 34.69% respectively. It is an even more striking when looking at the past five years considering both have beat out the S&P 500 with pharmaceuticals increasing an additional 31.44% and the biotechnology sector besting an astonishing 269.3% more return than the

1 Kaiser Family Foundation Report on the Uninsured. Available at http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7451.cfm. 2 Danzon, P., et al. “The Impact of Price Regulation on the Launch Delay of New Drugs.” Health Economics, 2005; 14(3): 269-292. Available at http://hc.wharton.upenn.edu/danzon/html/Journal_Articles.htm. 3 The Boston Consulting Group. “Ensuring Cost Effective Access to Innovative Pharmaceuticals – Do Market Interventions Work?” April, 1999. Available at http://www.bcg.com/impact_expertise/publications/files/Ensuring_Cost_Effective_Access_Innovative_Pharmaceuticals_Apr1999.pdf 4 Thorpe, K. et al. “Differences in Disease Prevalence as a Source of the U.S.–European Health Care Spending Gap.” Health Affairs (Web Exclusive) Oct. 2, 2007. Available at www.healthaffairs.org.

Historically the United States of America took pride in free trade and capitalism. Taxes on goods was a key driving force that began the American Revolution and later developed the power-house country present today. So, it is no wonder that when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) incurred new tax reforms, it was far from a smooth transition. In particular, pharmaceutical companies were hit the hardest. Within a ten year span, the drug industry will collectively have to pay $85 billion to the American government.1

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. Accompanied by a strong sense of disapproval from the public, which resulted in a rush to get the bill passed and deadlines tightened to make sure things were on the agenda on time. A debate ensued among the bill’s supporters regarding the importance of public opinion surrounding the ACA. The vast majority of supporters concluded it is only a minor part of the reform and not a critical component. The ACA has only been in effect for the past few years, and this short time gap makes assessing definitive effects of the ACA difficult. Success in in terms of the ACA is hard to define. This is due to the intentions set forth by the government being genially vague and ambiguous. Even so, with the ACA’s rapid movement through the design process many inconsistences in the reporting and managing of the proposed healthcare policy were noted. This led to an underestimation of the costs and overestimation of the perceived benefits. The result of the cost-benefit analysis and reviews of alternative methods were forgone in order to pass quick regulations. Furthermore, regulators failed to consider the moral hazards of the new rules, which are a result of people changing their habits because they don 't have to worry about the outcomes. For instance, people may smoke or drink more knowing that insurance will pay for any medical treatment. Furthermore, people can use the services for relatively minor issues

The purpose of this review is to investigate through journal sources, government data points, and published opinions and experiences aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it relates to arguments that the law should be repealed. I investigated the goals of the ACA, changes in care and insurance coverage, impacts on the labor market, and changes in insurance premium rates since the ACA was signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 201 (Hong, Holcomb, Bhandari, & Larkin, 2016) 0.

Technical risk, a large portion of all development costs are spent on drugs that never reach the market.

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

1. Cost: The drug development is a lengthy and an expensive process. It will aid in the predevelopment process to identify future demand and to identify if it is a worthwhile venture. The future of a company could depend on the success or failure of a new drug in the market.

Recently, there has been a debate about the high prescription drug prices in the United States. Accounting for 9.7% of the national health expenditure, $329.2 billion was spent on prescription medications ($931 per person) in 2011 (Linton, 2014). So what exactly is the average American getting with their $931? Well, because there is an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy that goes into creating, manufacturing, and distributing a new drug, it’s no wonder the prices are so high. But what other costs are folded into the prices of your prescribed medications? This review looks beyond just the research and development costs needed to take a new drug from idea to shelf by examining several journals and other credible, secondary sources, to shed some light on how much pharmaceutical companies are spending to develop, advertise, and sell their drugs.

This case study focuses Burroughs Wellcome and their drug Retrovir. Retrovir is a drug that treats AIDS and AID-related complications. In 1987, Burroughs Wellcome obtained approval from the FDA to market azidothymidine (AZT), also known as Retrovir, as a treatment for AIDS. Retrovir was the only kind of drug on the market. Because of this, many critics accused Burroughs Wellcome of price-gouging, as the price of Retrovir was $188 for a hundred 100mg capsules sold to wholesalers. The president of Burroughs Wellcome, T.E Haigler, defended the high price, stating it was due to uncertainty in the market, the possibility of new drug therapies, and profit margins created by new drugs. Even though Retrovir’s price was dropped 20 percent in December 1987, and 20 percent more in September 1989, due to the House of Representatives launching an investigation, there was still pressure to lower the price. The big question faced in this case is what is Burroughs Wellcome’s next move regarding pricing?

The cost of new medical drugs seems to be accepted by many people who use them. These pharmaceutical companies increase their profits more and more each year because many people assume that it does cost a lot of money for research and development. Where in reality, they are only spending about 15% of their profit margins on research and development alone. A huge percentage of these drugs are actually tested in other countries where people are more willing to do trials with these drugs because they cannot afford them. Not only are there more people who are more willing to try them, but also there is less regulation and oversight when it comes to testing. Conducting these clinical trials overseas not only saves