Bernie Sanders blocking Biden health nominees

Politics & Elections
1

Apparently tired of Joe Manchin getting all of the attention as the obstructionist Democrat in the Senate, Bernie Sanders has pledged to block Biden’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health — as well as any other health-related nominations – until the Biden Administration produces a comprehensive plan for lowering prescription drug prices. As Chairman of the relevant Senate committee, he has full discretion over when and whether these nominees are voted on in committee.

Bernie’s always been a self-important crank, but he’s gone off the deep end if he thinks that Biden is the roadblock to lowering drug prices. And taking federal public health agencies hostage to make his point is reprehensible.

2

Based on this report, he wants the NIH to reintroduce a most favored nation clause in future contracts they make with private sector companies to develop drugs, which he at least seems to be claiming would be an executive/NIH policy change that wouldn’t require congress.

3

I don’t exactly see what’s wrong with that. Biden and the Democrats are promising prescription drug pricing reform. Sanders just seems to be holding them responsible to that promise. That’s the opposite of what Manchin did, which was trying to undermine the Democratic promises that people had voted for.

Furthermore, I would argue it is the responsibility of the chairman of the Senate Health committee to fight for reducing prices on healthcare. He’s not someone usurping power like Manchin was.

4

Taking nominations hostage over some bone a Senator has to pick with the administration is a dishonorable and dangerous tactic (although one that’s far too common). Right now, Senator Tommy Tuberville is blocking all military promotions because of his objection to the Pentagon’s policy to pay for service members to travel for an abortion. Is that wrong, or is it fine to take hostages when you agree with the hostage taker’s demands?

Again, while this tactic isn’t uncommon, it’s almost always the minority party that’s using it against the President. This sort of intraparty squabbling makes Biden and Democrats generally look bad a year out from a Presidential election. It gives political cover to Republicans who pull the same stunt. It leaves these important agencies without executive leadership. And it looks like a tantrum on Bernie’s part because Biden’s nominee for NIH was not one of three individuals that he had recommended for the job.

5

I don’t think he’s doing anything outside of what his job is as a Senator. I don’t think it’s taking anyone “hostage” so much as using his power to oppose something he thinks is wrong. The issue he is opposed to is directly related to how the NIH does business.

If he was blocking the NIH nomination because of an objection to the way that foreign policy was handled or because he thought they weren’t doing a good enough job repairing interstate highways, then I could see calling it hostage-taking. But it seems that his objection is directly with what the NIH does, so it seems relevant.

By the way, I’m not a huge Bernie fan in general. I never supported any of his presidential candidacies and I’m far from a Bernie Bro. So I’m not defending him out of some kind of principle. I just don’t think there is anything egregiously wrong with what he’s doing here.

6

And as we all know, Republicans will not act badly unless they have that political cover.

7

The real problem with Sanders is that his socialist mindset leads him to think you can just ‘lower drug prices’ by fiat. You can’t. If you want to lower drug prices you need to lower barriers to entry to the market, lower the regulatory burden, reform the patent law so that manufacturers have more time to recoup certification costs before the drug patent expires, etc.

Other good reforms would be a prohibition on Doctor kickbacks in any form (junkets, speaking fees, etc), and insurance reform. But you can’t just mandate a price.

One trick Sanders likes is to allow reimportation of drugs. That’s also a bad idea and would fail. Drugs are cheaper in poorer countries becxause the marginal cost of production is low, so drug manufacturers can use price discrimination to make the market more efficient. This is a good thing for the poor in other countries, who get drugs at lower prices.

If you allow reimportation you would kill the high-priced American market, which would force drug manufacturers to raise drug prices around the world. Progressives and socialists should be the last people advocating this because it directly hurts the non-American poor, but Bernie is shockingly ignorant of basic economics.

8

Says the guy in the country with lower drug prices…

He’s not trying to set prices, he’s saying the Feds should be allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharma companies. As a free marketer, I would think you would support that goal, if not Sanders method of trying to force it.

9

The problem with that ‘negotiation’ is that the federal government is a monopoly, and the drug companies don’t have much choice.

And you seem to think that the drug companies are making so much profit that you can force them to drop prices with no consequence to R&D, innovation, etc.

Pharma profit statistics are perfect for abuse by partisans. Pharma comoanies invest billions in drug trials, and a single failed trial can sink a company. And if there is a success, the marginal cost of production is low so it looks like big profits if you don’t take into account the R&D costs of not just that drug, but of all the failed drug trials. So if you want to show ‘excess profits’, just pick a year where a drug passed its trials and went to market, but don’t average it with the years of investment it took to get there or with the years of losses when drug trials failed.

If you are an investor, if two investments return the same profit but one has higher risk, you will choose the lower risk investment every time. So in high volatility industries like pharma, profit margins have to be higher to pay for the risk premium.

When you factor it all in, Pharma doesn’t do any better than any other industry sector.

So what do you think will happen if you force drug prices lower? I can tell you: Some drugs will become unprofitable and research into them stopped. Pharma companies will focus more on boner pills and hair and weight loss medications, as those have huge markets. Treatment for your rare condition? Forget it.

If you want to lower the cost of drugs, figure out how to lower the cost of certification or extend patent life. Start by repealing the Kefauver amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act mandating tests for efficacy. Test for safety only, then let doctors use their judgment. That would cut down the time to market for new drugs without impacting safety, which would drop prices substantially.

Also, end consumer marketing of prescription drugs (“ask your doctor about”), and criminalize drug kickbacks to doctors. Drug companies push doctors very hard to prescribe the latest, most expensive drugs when other much cheaper alternatives are available.

10

A study funded by GlaxoSmithKline concludes that the biopharmaceutical industry doesn’t make all that much money after all. Hold on, let me pluck my monocle from my champagne glass as I recover from my shock.

11

Thanks for the lesson in capitalism, I guess? I think you mean the US Government is a monopsony, not a monopoly. The monopolies here are the pharma companies, which they get through patent protection.

But, the US, while a big buyer, is not a monopsony or monopoly - other countries and insurance companies also buy the drugs and are able to negotiate. I would doubt that Medicare and the VA is a larger buyer than all the insurance companies and other countries combined.

Anyway, I can boil your post down to one sentence - US taxpayers have to subsidize pharma companies so everyone else can benefit from the R&D that it pays for. I disagree with this.

We’re getting off topic of whether Sanders should use this method to get his way. So, back to the OP, I disagree with Sanders’ methods here, and I agree with other posters that it gives cover to Republicans who play these games all the time.

12

Very nice.

13

Price discrimination does not mean subsidizing, any more than the buyer of a Lexus is subsidizing the purchasers of Toyotas. In fact, by pharma companies lowering prices in places that simply can’t pay more, they increase overall sales and profits, which could result in lower prices for Americans too. Just not as low as it is for some others.

If you force drug reimportation, would you feel bad at all if it meant that prices for necessary drugs go up for people in poorer countries? In fact, they could easily go up at home too if the drug companies stop selling their drugs to poor countries to,avoid them being reimported to the U.S, because it will leave them in a less profitable situation.

Or you could frame it like this: People in poor countries are very lucky they only have to pay (for example) $50 for their diabetes medication, while Americans might pay much more because they have more disposable income. But a rich American is very angry that HE can’t get the drug for $50, so he wants the drugs sent to those poor people reimported so he can get them cheaper. But since that kills the profit of the pharma company, they’ll respond by simply not selling the drugs for $50 at all. And now that nice poor person will die.

I thought the left was all about helping the poor and redistributing wealth? And yet here they want to lower the prices of drugs for rich Americans, and if that means the poor in other countries have to go without, oh well.

14

How’s it work in Canada? You like it?

15

I never realized that guaranteeing the profit of the pharma company was helping the poor and redistributing wealth!

16

The reason we’re talking about this is because Bernie wants the state funding for drug research from the NIH to come with strings attached. The entire thing is about a subsidy.

17

Loved that graphic.

18

You know that prescription drugs are not covered by the gov’t in Canada? My wife’s Humira costs $1500/shot, which she takes twice per month. My family has private health insurance to cover drugs. And like in the U.S., the pharma companies have ‘compassionate’ programs for poor people. It has nothing to do with the government.

A bigger problem everywhere is insurance abuse. Pharma compamies are very good at figuring out ways to reward doctors who prescribe their stuff over cheaper alternatives. That should stop.

19

The same arguments in altered form. Imposing regulations lowers profits so companies wouldn’t produce goods, hire workers, build factories, etc. etc. etc. Imposing taxes lowers profits so… Imposing environmental policies lowers profits… Imposing a minimum wage lowers profits… Any and all governmental actions* lowers profits so they should never be imposed.

*This does not include running a court system, providing good infrastructure, passing bills that impede competitors, receiving special funding (no one can ever use the word subsidies) for their specific products, getting billions for R&D, etc. etc. etc. including everything that increases profits.

I don’t know whether to be on Sanders’ side in this individual case, but I know a bad argument when I hear one.

20

The Canadian government has price controls for drugs.