|
Top-level
 @mikey @rbreich If that is the case then the public was shielded from the true cost of the vaccine. The US government also provided guaranteed orders as well. Yes, it was an emergency period of time, but we were not paying the market price for the product (not even close). It reminds me of when I received vaccines from the government as a kid. Cost was hundreds of dollars, but the government made it practically free. 4 comments
@mikey @rbreich If that is the case, why does the government not provide stipulations about future pricing as a condition of receiving the grants‽ Then again, I think the same thing plays out in other industries as well (green technology, artificial intelligence, energy technology, space technology, etcetera).  @darnell @rbreich These are very good questions, and the answers usually boil down to the people with the money are the ones with the access and so the ones with the voices. Government wants research for public good. When they ask what needs to happen next, the ones with the seats at the table are often the pharma execs who say "if you don't let us rake in money we'll have to stop doing this" and so they let them have it.  @mikey @darnell @rbreich "why does the government not provide stipulations about future pricing as a condition of receiving the grants‽ " Because for decades now, the pharmaceutical industry has owned Congress. That is also why Medicare does not negotiate drug prices. (One could say a lot more, but that is the basic reason.) |
Gregory's Server
@darnell @rbreich It's a common situation in medical research. It's often done by universities, with at least partial government grants. But the final product patents are given to the companies managing the research, even if they didn't provide the majority funding, or the people or expertise.