It is a market that is likely going to have multiple competitors with the patent expiring, and those competitors are not likely to succeed if they compete against a state with a bottomless pocketbook. It appears likely this would result in less competition and - over a long run - higher prices?
Not trolling, I am genuinely confused how this is supposed to work.
There is no reason it can't offer other things, and often in many other places, do. The state is perfectly capable of doing things effectively, but we've conditioned ourselves to believe it can't because corporate America has wanted it that way due to the sheer terror of being out-managed by the state/municipal option (they can't gouge as flagrantly or impose endless layers of their own bureaucratic middle men, so they accuse the government via the dumbest projection).
The state sucks for many reasons, but often for the same reasons corporations do; bad leadership and defection from purpose, often in the process of avoiding transparency. Either can suck, and picking one over the other just because of an ideological crutch is daft.
Turns out regulatory capture is great for middle man but horrid for costs
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/sandy-springs-amid-reinventio...
And 'efficiency' isn't the sole determinant of value.
And in this particular case, the reason that California is jumping into the market is because the private merchants have artificially increased prices to pad their profits and pay their executives, at the expense of thousands of people who are now struggling to afford an essential (and a historically ridiculously cheap) medication.
Unless of course you mean the expense of thousands of dead or permanently disabled diabetics, that is the correct ballpark! (3)(4)
(1) https://www.diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes
(2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2022/06/20/4-out-of-5...
(3) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-2019-diabetes-ra...
(4) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-death...
California has about ~2 million diabetics (1) and even when factoring in type 2, most of them (2) will require insulin at some point. The scale is still in the millions.
(1) https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Do...
Well, no, it's the state government. It has powers that it absolutely can use that other market participants cannot.
> As long as they don't use illegal means to establish market position (i.e., coercion, etc.), there are no laws against them competing with private markets.
State governments, acting as sovereigns, are immune from federal antitrust (Parker immunity doctrine), and can, therefore, use what would otherwise be illegal means (including coercion) to exclude others from the market.
And the state could alternatively pass laws regulating private behavior. But sometimes having a state agency instead of a law is the less burdensome option.
It is just politics... Semi communist statements like that can gain traction in California, so they are uttered. It will not happen, but will spur another round of talks about how great state is, and what ifs
No sympathy for those who want to gouge ill people. About time, I hope the rest of America gets to buy cheaper insulin. Saying otherwise is a disgrace
It is truly terrifying to see how the narratives about Europe, and especially my home country, have infested the internet to a point where young people in Denmark actually believe random foreigners online know more about Denmark than their parents.
Although through regulatory pressures: "if you're too expensive we're not approving you"... usually works.