A new study recently published by the Journal of the American Medical Association and authored by doctors from Harvard Medical School is angering liberals by proving that their policies don’t actually work. In fact, it’s even worse than “not working;” liberal policies actually accomplish the opposite of what they’re supposed to do! For example, when it comes to the rising costs of healthcare in our country, this study proves that the government’s meddling in the healthcare industry is to blame for the drastic increase in our drug prices!
The new paper, published on August 23, The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins and Prospects for Reform, set out to “review the origins and effects of high drug prices in the US market and to consider policy options that could contain the cost of prescription drugs.”
What the paper’s authors, Harvard Medical School doctors Aaron Kesselheim and Jerry Avorn, and jurist Ameet Sarpatwari, found and subsequently admitted, shatters the very assertion that government regulation in the market is needed to keep medical care costs low. In fact, their findings were quite to the contrary.
According to the paper:
The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents.
In fact, the study’s authors conclude that the best answer to fixing our current healthcare woes… is more CAPITALISM and less government cronyism.
High drug prices are the result of the approach the United States has taken to granting government-protected monopolies to drug manufacturers, combined with coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits. The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices.