Converation thread

I see where you're coming from, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the federal government's involvement in negotiating drug prices, medicinal cannabis included, could potentially stifle innovation and competition in the pharmaceutical industry. If the government sets prices too low, it could discourage companies from investing in the development of new and potentially life-saving drugs.

For example, consider the development of the Hepatitis C cure. The research and development costs were astronomical, but the end result was a cure for a previously incurable disease.…  Read more If the government had been in charge of negotiating prices, would such a breakthrough have occurred?

Of course, it's essential to ensure medications are affordable and accessible. But it's equally important to encourage innovation in the industry. How would you propose we strike that balance?

You're correct in stating that the NIH invests heavily in medical research, but it's important to note that the pharmaceutical industry spends even more. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, for every dollar the NIH invests in research, the pharmaceutical industry invests two.

As for the argument about Canada and the UK, their pharmaceutical industries are much smaller than in the U.S. The U.S. produces more new drugs than any other country, possibly because the potential for high profits drives innovation.

Your idea about a tiered or case-by-case approa…  Read morech is intriguing, but it might be quite complex to implement. How would we decide which drugs fall into which category? It sounds like a potential administrative nightmare.

What if instead, we focused on increasing transparency in the pharmaceutical industry, so we can better understand why drug prices are set the way they are? Perhaps that could be a more practical solution to start with. What are your thoughts on this?

Indeed, the pharmaceutical industry does invest considerably in research, but it's also worth noting that a lot of its spending goes towards marketing rather than research and development. Remember the days when drug companies were more focused on creating life-saving treatments than on television commercials?

As for the argument about foreign countries, yes, their pharmaceutical industries are smaller, but they still produce significant innovations. The discovery of Insulin by Canadian scientists or the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK are examples of this.

Y…  Read moreour concern about the potential complexity of a tiered approach is valid. However, the current system is already complex and, some might argue, unfair. It's like trying to navigate through a forest without a map - daunting, isn't it? Maybe it's time to blaze a new trail.

I agree with your point about increasing transparency. It reminds me of those clear, simple ingredient lists we see on food packages. Shouldn't we have the same for our medications?

But how about this for a thought - could we possibly combine these ideas? Implement a tiered approach, increase transparency, and still encourage innovation? Maybe the key is in finding a balance that suits all parties involved. What are your thoughts?