https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilead_Sciences#Pricing
Gilead came under intense criticism for its high pricing of its patented drug sofosbuvir (sold under the brand name Sovaldi), used to treat hepatitis C. In the US, for instance, it was launched at $1,000 per pill or $84,000 for the standard 84-day course, but it was drastically cheaper in the developing world; in India, it dropped as low as $4.29 per pill.
Low priced HIV drugs for the poor is part PR and part pragmatism. Poor people can't pay the sorts of drug prices that insured Americans do, and poor countries aren't going to enforce drug patents purely for the benefit of American corporations, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicines_and_Related_Substanc...
Gilead looks gracious by preemptively embracing the situation that was going to occur anyway (poor patients aren't going to pay high prices).
IMHO this is great - broadest shoulders shoulder most.
However, it likely should be more organized? Maybe do more of this research in public institutions and make it freely available to commercialize.
Which becomes annoying when fairly rich Europeans ride these coattails (and defense) while being incessantly snobbish about their healthcare superiority, in large part paid for by us.
Though a big part of the Trump win comes from this - yea some Americans are rich, but a lot of them are really poor and justly mad at how much more expensive things are that we produce.
The EU’s Horizon Europe is €95.5B (2021–27) with €16B for ERC alone, national funders like the UK’s NIHR spend ~£1.4B/yr, and Europe’s pharma industry invests ~€50B/yr domestically.
Europe is home to Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GSK, Novo Nordisk, each spending billions annually on R&D (Roche CHF 13.2B, AZ $13.6B, Sanofi €7.4B etc.). Also a big chunk of US list‑price "overpayment" never reaches manufacturers—rebates/discounts were an estimated $335B in 2023—so it’s not all subsidizing innovation.
Innovation is now multipolar: in 2024 more NAS originated from China (28) than from the U.S. (25) or Europe (18). So strong US funding matters, but Europe clearly pays and builds a lot too.
That said, our ... fascinating ... experiences ... in trying to get the government to fix our health systems is certainly no outsider's fault. Europeans and others can feel at ease continuing to mock us.
I'm 63, and my wife is near my age. We take this stuff seriously.
I have known many people that have been completely devastated by medical crises. Even with insurance, some types of illness can be catastrophic, financially.
I also have known quite a number of folks that have done an amazing job of taking care of themselves, yet still had medical crises.
-but if I get a terminal, especially long-term illness, it's a wipeout either way; if I'm out $20k/year to the healthcare providers and $20k/year to the insurance company, and can't work -- draining $40k/year in health costs just isn't going to work out for very long, unless I can make it another decade or two.
Edit: I should say, too, I give money directly to my daughter (that is, well before [ideally] I'm ill), specifically so I can declare bankruptcy with less family wealth loss if I should have to, and to help fend off Medicaid clawback.
Put me in Hospital for 17 days. A week of that, was ICU (lots of machines that go “beep”).
I had an HMO, at the time, and it was a pain, dealing with them, but it ended up costing me almost nothing. I think it would have been almost a million dollars, if out of pocket.
edit: remainder of original reply removed.
I'm sorry but by my math, there aren't that many publicly routable IP addresses (like 2.5 billion?). Generating and storing rainbow tables for all 2.5 billion publicly routable IP addresses wouldn't take an exorbitant amount of time, making that part semi-reversible.
Edit: On reconsideration, though, given that, I went ahead and removed the link, email address, and solicitation generally. I'm confident nothing would go wrong in the context of the 1000 or so people I imagine would ever see that link before the service is removed/renamed in some years, but I can appreciate the high-value liability of being wrong on that. Thanks.
The entire original point of insurance was to amortize the costs of the extreme events by spreading the costs across many people.
Are you paying rack rates for pharmaceuticals instead of the PBM rates? That gets expensive really fast.
This isn't very relevant to us though given none of us have any long-term issues (what actually got me to switch off health insurance was getting the EoB paperwork [every week, because the bills never seemed to stop for a long while after I stopped going to the burn clinic] for severely burning my hand in a grease fire; I would've been better off uninsured and shopping around). After a decade at the $20k/year assumption for family of 3's health insurance, we wind up with ~$200k saved up BEFORE investment gains (which, while I'll grant can be negative, we do have a pretty powerful, accessible, and long-term consistent engine in the US). Once I'm in my 40s, I should be able to afford having brain cancer; and if I don't get brain cancer, well, the biggest positive there is not having brain cancer.
Part of the reason the US has a higher GDP is because we work longer hours and take less vacation. "You work harder, therefore you should shoulder more" hardly seems fair.
Europe makes fun of us for our defense spending yet demands protection, makes fun of us for working long hours yet says we should shoulder more, makes fun of us for overspending on health care yet charges us 10X as much for the drugs they manufacture: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-much-more-o...
I just can't shake the feeling that Europeans see Americans as suckers.
> we work longer hours and take less vacation.
Yes, but people working longer hours doesn't necessarily translate to more output, especially when quality is taken into account.
Anecdotally, from what I've heard from people working in international companies, the American work culture doesn't seem to be very efficient when looking at the end result. The studies of 32 hour work weeks seem to indicate similar findings, though like the anecdotes, should be taken with a grain of salt of course. But I truly believe that in most cases, a developer who works 10 hours a day will not produce more than one who works 6 hours a day, at least after a couple of days.
>Europe makes fun of us for our defense spending yet demands protection
You do realise that until very recently, America has gained an absurd amount of soft power through this defence spending, right? And was able to convert this soft power into a lot of GDP through indirect subsidies of its international companies? Just because the current administration has squandered this advantage, doesn't mean you did not get out more than you paid for the last couple of decades.
>I just can't shake the feeling that Europeans see Americans as suckers.
I agree with you on that point,but not for the reasons you might think. I see the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" phenomenon, people constantly against their self-interest and the like, and and it's hard not to. I have relatives in the US, and I still feel sympathy for your people.
But it's getting harder and harder to not see you as suckers when you look at the tariffs or the cuts to welfare, science and education, all while the rich get massive tax cuts. And all is being done in the name of "draining the swamp", by a billionaire who is incredibly well-connected with 90% of the corrupt elite he publicly opposes.
"makes fun of us for overspending on health care yet charges us 10X as much for the drugs they manufacture: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-much-more-o..."
It is pretty amusing to see Europeans gloating over their low-cost/public healthcare while part of its treatment structure is subsidized by Americans through what they pay for the same to the same companies.
But as we are supposed to steelman others on hn, I will pretend that your comment was made in good faith, and that you are actually amused by "Europeans gloating" and just want my take on the rest of the parent comment.
Of course, some of the price difference between US and the rest of the world comes from research and development, along with price segmentation, the latter being pretty much standard in capitalism on a global scale.
But as long as your drug companies spend so much on marketing and making intermediaries rich beyond measure, and your government doesn't negotiate the prices down and doesn't properly regulate them, it seems a bit strange to me to completely focus on the r&d part when talking about the 10x difference.
While the US isn't willing to meaningfully address any of the other major issues with healthcare pricing, it feels like this issue is just an excuse for some Americans to see themselves as victims on the global stage, which has become rather fashionable with supporters of the current administration. To an outside observer, the situation looks very similar to the ongoing embarrassment about the tariffs, or the examples I have already given about defense spending and vacation time.
I don't support Trump.
"'Novo Nordisk is ripping off the American people,' Bernie Sanders says of Ozempic and Wegovy costs"
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bernie-sanders-oz...
Obama repeatedly referred to Europeans as "free riders" on matters of defense: https://archive.is/cvJ8d
Historically, with American Exceptionalism, Americans didn't care as much about getting a fair deal as long as they were making the world a better place. It's you Europeans who decided to gloat and undermine American Exceptionalism. That's why Americans from both parties are now focused on getting a better deal for ourselves. American Exceptionalism is over, and smug Europeans are on their own now.
How can that be? As an American you must understand that everyone negotiate for themselves with no external or global consequences.
Ofcausr you can have higher salary without it affecting your neighbor - it is just you working higher!
And ofcause you can negotiate better deals with the medicine industry without it affecting you neighbor - you are just a better business man!
People always claim this, but they're rarely able to give compelling concrete examples.
It's hard to say for sure. For all we know, if it weren't for NATO, the US would've been able to sell much more military gear to Europe, since they would have greater need for it.
The US economy generally performed quite well in the pre-WW2 era, before NATO was created. I don't think our current relationship with Europe is at all essential.
But $84k seems a little pricey. Imagine paying that out of pocket.
I hate this so much. Nobody knows how much anything costs. What kind of market is this?
1 - Premium
2 - Co-Pay
3 - Deductible
4 - Co-Insurance
5 - Balance Billing -- you dont learn the full cost until weeks/months later
6 - Non-covered items -- you dont learn the full cost until weeks/months later
Slightly off topic, but I have this exact feeling every time I visit the US and buy stuff in a store.
"Sorry, we don't include tax in the price that is displayed, so you'll need to either figure that out in your head or just pull the slot machine of what you are actually gonna pay at the register."
And don't give me the "taxes are different from place to place" cuz the store ain't gonna change place while I am in it. So much is just psychological warfare in the US, which just has no reason to be...
It's not as though most people are in a position to shop around when it comes to tax authorities.
It is a pretty stupid system.
Canada, where I lived for years, has, or at least when I was there had, the same thing with taxes not being included in posted prices, and yes, it's annoying, i'll grant you that. I especially realized how annoying when I eventually moved to a country where all posted retail prices include all taxes. However, if you're in a supermarket with $150 in groceries in your cart and can't muster the neurons to roughly remember what sales taxes in your area are (their percentage is indeed often mentioned in price tags) and do the tiny bit of mental arithmetic necessary to know what 15% on $150 or etc is, you've got bigger problems than a specific grocery bill.
This is a hugely underappreciated aspect of why the cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is so high in the US. Well-meaning folks have called for decades for the US to transition to single-payer, citing the overall lower cost experienced in other countries as a primary motivator. Meanwhile, US companies remain the global leaders in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. That development is often subsidized by US taxpayers and the remainder is largely recovered from US patients because the single-payer systems in other countries often impose price controls that largely don't exist in the US.
(This is not meant to argue against single-payer in the US. All things being equal, a single-payer system would likely solve many more problems than it would cause. I'm just pointing out what many before me already have about how Americans disproportionately subsidize the development of the healthcare the rest of the world benefits from).
Or, just fund government research endeavors with no profit motive. If we can have a JPL for aerospace engineering, why not for pharmaceuticals?
I mean China is really rich, runs lots of centralized R&D, and has an excellent research culture, why isn’t it developing cures for everything?
The US has enjoyed a high concentration of R&D talent and funding which has somewhat starved out the desire of the rest of the world to do similar research.
If you are China, for example, why spend the funds to R&D new drugs when you can pull the same research from NIH and FDA efforts of the US and produce those same drugs for cheap.
And that isn't to say China is the only nation doing this. India is pretty famous for doing the same thing.
The issue with these drugs is once the chemical structure is known and proven to work, it's (usually) relatively trivial to spin up manufacturing.
China puts in R&D on products that are hard to manufacture even if the "how" is well known. They do that because China is a country built on international trade. That's why they are a world leader in battery tech.
Boner pills? Sure, go nuts on patenting those. But HIV prevention? No, it's immoral to patent this.
That has not been the case at all in the countries that did go that route. The US system has serious issues but I would take it over Canada's any day.
Citation needed. The US is neither dominating the list of big pharma (see e.g. Novartis, Roche, Astrazenica...), nor are the US exceptional in R&D spending per GDP (South Korea and Israel are the outliers). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/research-spending-gdp?tab...
From the first link in the OP you're replying to:
> The United States Senate Committee on Finance launched an 18-month investigation of Gilead's Sovaldi pricing, and argued in its 2015 report that Gilead set prices high in disregard of the human cost and in order to set the stage for a higher eventual price for Sovaldi's successor, Harvoni. The committee's investigation, based in part on internal documents obtained from Gilead, revealed that the company had considered prices ranging from $50,000 to $115,000 per year, trying to strike a balance between revenue and predicted activist and public relations blowback, with little regard to research and development costs.
The pricing was found to be intentionally divorced from R&D costs. They are charging as much as they can because they can, not because of R&D.
It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest.
Keep in mind that the value is only "theirs" by force of IP law which at least officially exists for the benefit of society as a whole. Permitting a situation where people are priced out of a cure because the only available alternative is exorbitantly expensive doesn't seem moral or useful.
If the concern is ensuring corporate investment into R&D then public policy could be adopted to subsidize R&D expenses either up front or after the fact.
There's no good reason a liver transplant should cost 300k, so yours is a false comparison.
I suspect that the lowest realistic cost in the US could be about 150k.
When compared to conservative treatments, transplants are expensive everywhere. A very invasive treatment with a small army of specialists involved.
Pharma companies are gamblers. They gamble on the cost of R&D, the market size for the drug, the amount they will be able to charge. The higher the expected value of their profits, the wider variety of drugs look like attractive prospects financially.
No denying the US plays a huge role in the global pharmaceutical industry - but Europe does too - semaglutide (Ozempic/Rybelsus/Wegovy) was developed by Novo Nordisk, headquartered in Denmark.
The popular ADHD drug lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse/Elvanse) was developed by a US-based research team, but they ended up being acquired by a British pharmaceutical company (Shire), which in turn was acquired by a Japanese company (Takeda), who owned the patents (which expired last year or the year before, depending on country), and remain one of the major manufacturers of it.
If you want a career in drug development, there are huge opportunities in the EU and Switzerland; by no means are you limited to the US. As usual, in the US you will almost certainly get paid more, but some people find the social setting of Europe more to their liking, and view that as a compensating advantage which makes up for lower pay.
Switzerland is one of the few countries where getting paid more in the US for the same job would generally not be an "as usual" :) The large majority of equivalent jobs gets paid more in Switzerland, including office ones. The ones that don't are the outliers (which are of course greatly overrepresented here on HN).
This is IME, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-much-more-o...
- *For many large pharmaceutical companies ("Big Pharma"), marketing costs often exceed R&D spending.* In analyses of the top 10 drugmakers by revenue in 2020, 7 companies spent more on sales and marketing than on research and development. For example, Johnson & Johnson spent $22 billion on marketing compared to $12 billion on R&D; Bayer spent $18 billion on marketing vs. $8 billion on R&D[1][2].
- The combined marketing spend for these top 10 companies exceeded R&D by $36 billion (about 37%) in 2020[1][2].
[1] https://www.ahip.org/news/articles/new-study-in-the-midst-of... [2] https://www.csrxp.org/icymi-new-study-finds-big-pharma-spent...
Surely that's something that would be easier to get bipartisan support for, somewhat avoiding the "socialism vs capitalism" chasm between the parties that prevents meaningful healthcare reform.
[2] https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID...
Well, fuck that. I'm already paying $24K annually for my health care that covers about half of anything short of a catastrophe.
I'm not an expert on this, but my PBM insists on going with stores that have higher prices. If I go with the less expensive store, they do not cover it. Sometimes, it makes sense to co with the less expensive store, but then it doesnt even draw down your annual deductable. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
I wonder what this will look like worldwide, especially in countries where this is needed the most, once production ramps up.
It’s just not sustainable.
https://www.aaas.org/news/road-lenacapavir-breakthrough-hiv-...
Seems to be a combination of university funding (University of Utah), big pharma (Gilead), and global HIV advocacy groups working together.
Sadly this kind of university research and non-profit advocacy groups are both prime targets of the Trump administration’s funding cuts. The next breakthrough drugs may have to be developed in some other country.
Seeing that pharmaceutical companies, on average, spend much more on marketing than R&D I would eliminate marketing.
Most of the rest of the world has banned drug advertisements, and sales reps whose activities more resemble bribery than anything else, and they're doing fine.
Don't even eliminate it. Just halve it. The typical drug "researcher" spends $2 on commercials and sports sponsorships for every $1 spent on R&D.
In addition to marketing, pharmaceutical companies spend, again on average, MUCH MUCH WAAAAAAAAY more on stock buybacks and dividends than they do R&D. Between $2 and $4 for every $1 spent on R&D.
That could also be a source of, oh who the hell am I kidding...
Modern drugmakers aren't biotechnology companies, they are financial instruments that just so happen, by coincidence, to employ chemists.
The obvious objection is that this will result in inflated research budgets and maybe marketing-adjacent research (like benchmarking). But actually, more benchmarking could be good. Or maybe they’ll inflate their research budgets by dropping money into basic research.
I expect that in many cases this is only true because the advertising market is competitive - you can’t advertise less, or you’ll lose market share to your competitors. But if everyone is prohibited from advertising cars, is the total market for cars really going to shrink? And if it does, is that actually a net negative for society?
Anyway, marketing is a useless overhead in our society for the most part. Especially in the case of medical products, where you go talk to a professional, a doctor, who can recommend the ones you actually need.
“To what end,” my goal is to at least pin it to something that might have useful side effects, R&D.
Stock buybacks and dividends are basically just a proxy for profits, and the fact that a company has greater profits than R&D spending isn’t a ratio that’s especially meaningful.
(You could, however, make a good argument that if profits are too high, it’s an indicator that the market isn’t adequately competitive, and regulation or anti-trust enforcement is merited to ensure competitiveness.)