The ongoing furor over the price of prescription pharmaceuticals has become so intense that even an august, establishment group like the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) cannot help but weigh in. Its report, “Making Medicines Affordable: A National Imperative,” released Thursday, is encouraging, as it is from an eminent group long on scientists and short on politicos, hinting at a rare, nonpartisan objectivity befitting the Academies.

The report is a valuable addition to the public debate. The 17-person panel that wrote it reached consensus on many, though not all, of its recommendations. But if there is a culprit lurking beneath the surface of these many policy recommendations, it is the biopharmaceutical industry. The report includes calls to demand more financial transparency from drug manufacturers as if they were utilities, to outlaw so-called “pay for delay” patent settlements, and to limit the benefits of the Orphan Drug Act.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • This is one of the more balanced articles I’ve read about the drug pricing issue and raises several good points. But it also perpetuates several myths that the pharma industry wants to believe. One of these is the Sovaldi myth. That Gilead took these enormous risks and spent incredible amounts of money on the development of this drug. Sure the paid $11B for Parmasett. This was after the latter company’s development of the antiviral had been funded with mostly taxpayer dollars through various NIH mechanisms. Then Gilead did the clinical development of Sovaldi and with the $84k price tag made their entire investment back in a couple of years and then some. In spite of the fact that others have entered the market the price of these drugs still cannot be considered “cheap”. As far as the “incentives ” for pharma companies to do “innovative research” they could do a lot better at this if they started spending even a small percentage of what they currently put into share buybacks (which serve to pump up their share prices and enrich executives) into innovation.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy