Response on "Should Big Pharma Be Permitted to Set its Own Pricing Structure"
The main point of the article is that pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to set
their own pricing structure to be able to recoup and sustain their R&D innovation costs.
This essay will argue that the main point of the article is correct, and that
pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to set their own pricing structure, subject
to increased competition in the pharmaceutical market. This essay will cover both sides
of the issue, and discuss the importance of innovation costs, pricing models and
competition as arguments in favour of allowing pharmaceutical companies to set their
own pricing structure, while also touching on the importance of social responsibility,
unethical business practices and price gouging as arguments against allowing
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX to set their own pricing XXXXXXXXX.
Pharmaceutical companies XXXXXX XX allowed to XXX XXXXX own XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX because
of XXXXX innovation costs, pricing XXXXXX and market XXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX,
pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX XXXXX incur tremendous costs, XX the XXXX of $5 XXXXXXX (or
$XX XXXXXXX after XXX time XXXXX XX XXXXX is accounted for), XXX drug project.[X] XXX bulk
XX these costs XX toward XXXXXXX XXXXXX innovation and XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX afloat.
XXXXX, pharmaceutical companies should XX allowed XX set prices that XXXX XXXX XXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX and allow XXXX to continue XXXXXXXXX. Secondly, pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX
have a XXXXXXX XXXXX that is distinct from XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. They XXX XXXXXX to use XXX
‘cost XXXX’ approach because XXXX of XXX products are radical XXXXXXXXXX, rather than
incremental improvements, from the previous XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXX, only XXX fifth XX
XXXXX successfully tested medicines are XXXXXXXXXX. These contribute to XXXX XXXXX XX
pharmaceutical XXXX XXXXXXXXXX that support XXX XXXXXXXX that XXXXX companies should
XXXX a XXXXXXX XXXXX unlike those of other XXXXXXXXXX. [X] Finally, XXX highly XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX industry is an XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX down XXXXXXXXXXXXXX prices.
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, rather XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX or XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX limits,
should be
expanded to XXXXXX that patients have access XX affordable drugs XX prices XXXX XXX XXXX
XX both them and XXX companies XXXX supply these drugs. [3]
XX the other hand, pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX be XXXXXXX to set their own
XXXXXXX structure XXXXXXX XX XXX need for social responsibility, the XXXXXXXX XX unethical
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXX prevalence XX XXXXX XXXXXXX.
XXXXXXXX, pharmaceutical companies have an XXXXXXXX social responsibility to save
XXXXX XXX cure diseases. XXXX produce XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX cure a XXXXXXX XX chronic
and XXXXX XXXXXXXX, such XX XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX and genetic XXXXXXXX.[X]
XX a result, pharmaceutical companies XXXXXX XXX XX allowed XX XXX XXXXXX in a XXX that
XXXXXX XXXXXX to XXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXX social welfare, as XXXX XXXXX be a XXXXXXXXX XX
their XXXXXX responsibilities.
Secondly , pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in unethical business practices
such as pay for XXXXX practices, where XXX companies pay XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX to
delay XXX production of generic XXXXX XXXX that XXX pharmaceutical companies XXX
XXXXXXXX XX profit off higher XXXXXX. XXXX wanton XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
that more should XX XXXX XX regulate XXX XXXXXX XXXXX XX pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXX, pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX have exploited the complex drug XXXXXXX process and
XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX to price XXX drugs XX a XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX higher XXXXXX classes XXX
afford, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX a XXXX of other XXXXXXXX of much needed healthcare.
XX conclusion, pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXX should be XXXXXXX XX set their own pricing
structure, subject to increased competition in the pharmaceutical XXXXXX. XXXX XX
XXXXXXX such an approach would XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX to recover and XXXXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX, adopt a XXXXXXX XXXXX that XXXXXX them XX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXX
bring down drug XXXXXX for XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX market competition.
XXXXXXXX
[1] Arnold, XXXXX X., XXX XXXXX L. XXXXXX. "The XXXXXXXX XXX strategy XX XXXXXXXX
self-XXXXXXXXXX: XXX pharmaceutical industry's XXXXXXXXXX for ethical direct-XX-consumer
XXXXXXXXXXX XX a XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX." XXXXXXX XX Health Politics, XXXXXX XXX XXX
38, XX. X (XXXX): 505-544.
[2] XXXXXX, XXXXXXX Lage. "XXXXXX pharmaceutical XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXX: XXXXXXXX
issues XX ethics and equity." MEDICC review 13 (XXXX): XX-XX.
[3] XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX X. "Big XXXXXX profits and the public XXXXX." The Milbank
Quarterly XX, no. X (2016): XX.
[X] XXXXXXXXXX, Hagop M., XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, XXX Leonard X. Zwelling.
"Cancer XXXXX in XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX: Justum XXXXXXX—the just price." XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XX, no. XX (2013): XXXX.
References
XXXXXX, Denis G., and James L. XXXXXX. "The politics XXX XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX
XXXX-regulation: XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX's principles for XXXXXXX direct-to-consumer
advertising XX a deceptive XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX." XXXXXXX XX Health XXXXXXXX, XXXXXX and XXX
38, no. 3 (2013): 505-XXX.
Dávila, XXXXXXX XXXX. "Global XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXX: critical issues
of ethics and XXXXXX." XXXXXX review 13 (XXXX): 16-22.
Deangelis, Catherine D. "XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and XXX XXXXXX loses." The XXXXXXX
Quarterly XX, XX. 1 (2016): 30.
Kantarjian, Hagop M., Tito Fojo, XXXXXXX Mathisen, and Leonard A. Zwelling. "Cancer
drugs in XXX United States: Justum Pretium—XXX XXXX price." Journal of clinical XXXXXXXX
XX, no. XX (XXXX): XXXX.
XXXXXX-Lue, XXXX, XXXXXXX Santoro, and XXXX Koski. "The XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX of
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX." Annual review XX XXXXXXXXXXXX and toxicology XX (2015):
XXX-206.
XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX M. "XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX industry-prices XXX progress." XXX England
Journal of Medicine 351 (XXXX): 927-XXX.
">