Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluemanc100 said:
That's a bloody joke, the drug companies need to be kept under control. Clearly we need their expertise but they can't simply be allowed to make the prices up as they go along

Off topic but the suggestion from JC that he will set up a state pharmaceutical company is preposterous so the existing companies need to be managed firmly
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, I know you and I agree about many things but you're way off the mark here.

How on earth do you propose that the UK tells Merck, Sanofi, pfizer, Roche, Bayer, BSM, Santen, Shire (Takeda), CSL Behring and every other pharma I can think of, what to do? What areas of research to do, what drug development to pursue, what prices to set.

Honestly, I sense your frustration, but it's a ludicrous suggestion. They are free, independent companies with HQ's which are not in the UK. They will focus their efforts where the profits are, and they spend billions in bringing new drugs to market. If the return is not there, they will simply not bother with that line of products and will focus on some alternative. (This is a critical problem with the development of new antibiotics, by the way.)

The UK is in a very fortunate position that we have a near-monopolistic buyer of drugs - the NHS. The NHS volumes compared to Spire and Bupa etc are enormous, which means the NHS gets to call the shots with the pharma businesses and to a much greater extent than in other countries, define it's own buying terms. Big pharma then has to decide does it comply, or miss out on effectively all UK volume if NICE does not approve use.

The upshot is we are best in class at negotiating supply contracts with the pharma businesses. It's not a perfect scenario by any means, but without a global initiative to nationalise all pharma companies - which is never happening, obviously - then I don't know what more can be done.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Sorry mate, I know you and I agree about many things but you're way off the mark here.

How on earth do you propose that the UK tells Merck, Sanofi, pfizer, Roche, Bayer, BSM, Santen, Shire (Takeda), CSL Behring and every other pharma I can think of, what to do? What areas of research to do, what drug development to pursue, what prices to set.

Honestly, I sense your frustration, but it's a ludicrous suggestion. They are free, independent companies with HQ's which are not in the UK. They will focus their efforts where the profits are, and they spend billions in bringing new drugs to market. If the return is not there, they will simply not bothering with that line of products and will focus on some alternative. (This is a critical problem with the development of new antibiotics, by the way.)

The UK is in a very fortunate position that we have a near-monopolistic buyer of drugs - the NHS. The NHS volumes compared to Spire and Bupa etc are enormous, which means the NHS gets to call the shots with the pharma businesses and to a much greater extent than in other countries, define it's own buying terms. Big pharma then has to decide does it comply, or miss out on effectively all UK volume if NICE does not approve use.

The upshot is we are best in class at negotiating supply contracts with the pharma businesses. It's not a perfect scenario by any means, but without a global initiative to nationalise all pharma companies - which is never happening, obviously - then I don't know what more can be done.
Click to expand...
The post I replied to suggested that the prices were being "controlled" by the NHS.... and I quote "the roll the NHS plays in keeping drug prices low"

I made the mistake (clearly) of assuming the comment was true or maybe I misunderstood it and it relates to the bulk purchases they make as you have explained
 
bluethrunthru said:
more news to be filed under fake by some I am sure - although foreign labour shortages were predicted and its food production now but undoubtedly will spread to other vital roles going forwards.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...es-50-million-apples-rotting-UK-orchards.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50205951
Click to expand...
I don't know how the Mail has the gall to run such a story! When these issues are as a direct consequence of the anti-EU bile they have poured out for the past decade.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Sorry mate, I know you and I agree about many things but you're way off the mark here.

How on earth do you propose that the UK tells Merck, Sanofi, pfizer, Roche, Bayer, BSM, Santen, Shire (Takeda), CSL Behring and every other pharma I can think of, what to do? What areas of research to do, what drug development to pursue, what prices to set.

Honestly, I sense your frustration, but it's a ludicrous suggestion. They are free, independent companies with HQ's which are not in the UK. They will focus their efforts where the profits are, and they spend billions in bringing new drugs to market. If the return is not there, they will simply not bother with that line of products and will focus on some alternative. (This is a critical problem with the development of new antibiotics, by the way.)

The UK is in a very fortunate position that we have a near-monopolistic buyer of drugs - the NHS. The NHS volumes compared to Spire and Bupa etc are enormous, which means the NHS gets to call the shots with the pharma businesses and to a much greater extent than in other countries, define it's own buying terms. Big pharma then has to decide does it comply, or miss out on effectively all UK volume if NICE does not approve use.

The upshot is we are best in class at negotiating supply contracts with the pharma businesses. It's not a perfect scenario by any means, but without a global initiative to nationalise all pharma companies - which is never happening, obviously - then I don't know what more can be done.
Click to expand...

It goes further than that as other countries use the price set by the NHS as a benchmark hence US desire to see that ability to set pricing broken up. Making U.K. drug buying a regional competence rather than a national one could be one route thereby allowing drug companies to set different prices per region which in poorer regions could lead to reduced healthcare and in wealthier regions higher drug pricing.
 
Bluemanc100 said:
The post I replied to suggested that the prices were being "controlled" by the NHS.... and I quote "the roll the NHS plays in keeping drug prices low"

I made the mistake (clearly) of assuming the comment was true or maybe I misunderstood it and it relates to the bulk purchases they make as you have explained
Click to expand...

I’m more annoyed that I typed ‘roll’ not ‘role’. It relates to the amount the NHS buys. The volume they buy allows them to set pricing. Other countries also use this pricing as a benchmark.
 
BobKowalski said:
I’m more annoyed that I typed ‘roll’ not ‘role’. It relates to the amount the NHS buys. The volume they buy allows them to set pricing. Other countries also use this pricing as a benchmark.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to comment about the typo

Chippy has given me a sound insight into the working of the NHS and drug pricing anyway.. I'm not an expert though SWMBO worked in the NHS for 30 odd years
 
BobKowalski said:
It goes further than that as other countries use the price set by the NHS as a benchmark hence US desire to see that ability to set pricing broken up. Making U.K. drug buying a regional competence rather than a national one could be one route thereby allowing drug companies to set different prices per region which in poorer regions could lead to reduced healthcare and in wealthier regions higher drug pricing.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I find it bizarre that whenever growing privatization of the NHS is discussed, detractors always cite the US as the alternative. Well that might be a useful bit of mud to sling, but no-one in their right minds would ever choose the US model as something we should aspire to, or adopt in any way. It is the very worst healthcare system imaginable.

(Probably not in clinical outcome terms, provided you are wealthy enough to afford the insurance, or provided your company does. In that respect it's actually very good and way better than ours. But in value for money terms it is TERRIBLE, as it is in terms of the lack of provision of healthcare for all.)
 
You know when you get an earworm? I think Mark Francois probably has the guy with the booming voice going round his head as he tried to get to sleep singing

" we're not gonna Brexit
no we're not gonna Brexit
we're not gonna Brext..any moooorrrrreeeeeeeeeeeee!"

Probably why the wee chubby man is so angry these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top