McArdle: There’s a cost in making drugs more affordable here

Holding back pharmaceutical profits will discourage research and development of life-saving drugs.

By Megan McArdle

The Washington Post

Americans’ outrage about prescription-drug prices is odd, in a way. Drugs account for less than 10 percent of the nation’s overall health care spending, and while the price of some medicines has spiked, overall spending on prescription drugs has grown more slowly than broader health care expenditures. In 2017, the increase didn’t even keep up with inflation.

Yet polls show that pharmaceutical companies are one of the most hated private-sector industries, below the rest of the health care industry; and below even lawyers. That’s why it has been such fertile territory for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, who in April introduced a bill to control prescription-drug prices and last week tweeted that, once in the White House, he would “lower the outrageously high price of prescription drugs.” The idea has proven so popular that even Republicans, including Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, are getting into the act.

Which isn’t really surprising at all. Drugs may be a small part of our health care spending, but it’s the cost we’re most directly exposed to month after month. Moreover, it’s easy to directly compare U.S. prices with the much lower prices in, say, Canada. Americans think the difference is unfair, because it is.

And yet Americans arguably get a pretty good deal from all this overspending: new drugs. The oversize profits that pharmaceutical companies collect in the United States encourage them to do lots of research and development in the hope of earning more of those sweet, sweet returns. The rest of the world essentially free-rides on Americans’ willingness to pay more.

If the United States enacted European-style price controls on drugs, less of that research would be done. And that would mean real losses to human welfare; in recent years, drug companies have offered, among other things, a cure for hepatitis C, a treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy and near-miraculous remission rates for previously terminal cancers.

That argument is a familiar one, though, and advocates for some form of price control have ready rejoinders. Probably the most frequently heard is that drug companies can keep research investment high by cutting in other areas, such as marketing, dividends and stock buybacks. And boohoo if the shareholders don’t like it.

The advocates’ solution is simple, appealing and wrong. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the drug-pricing issue, which is not a budget problem but an investment problem.

A budget problem is what it sounds like; it’s how you match outflow to inflow. If your salary drops by a third, you start cutting expenses until you’ve eliminated the deficit. Farewell, vacation, and it may be time to sell one of the cars.

But investments are about how you make your income grow. Imagine that you’re deciding whether to go into business for yourself; it doesn’t really matter what sort of business, but since Tuesday was National Roast Leg of Lamb Day, let’s say you want to open a sheep farm.

You’re a wise and careful person, so you calculate your likely expenses and how much you can charge for your tender young lambs. The math says sheep farming will offer you a tidy little living. But just as you’re about to commit, the government announces price controls on lamb that will eliminate your profits. Do you still open the sheep farm?

You could cut the budget and maybe still eke out a living. But when you’re making a new investment, the question isn’t “How can I make my income match my expenses?” but “Is this the best use of my time and money?”

Most of us want to do more than eke out a living. If government squeezes the profit out of a business, we’re not going to go into that business; we’ll do something else.

That’s how pharmaceutical firms think about research and development: not as something they must do, which they will support by economizing elsewhere, but as something they would like to do if the investment pays better than doing something else, such as executing stock buybacks. It’s also how people buying biotech stocks, or lending money to pharmaceutical firms, think about their activities. And so, if the returns on those investments are squeezed, fewer investments will be made.

There’s a reasonable argument, of course, that Americans should be willing to forsake pharmaceutical research to make current drugs more affordable. But before going that route, everyone needs to be clear on what sort of decision is being made. Otherwise, it’s all too likely that cutting drug prices now, in the name of easing people’s budgets, will mean later discovering that we inadvertently sacrificed the lifesaving investments of the future.

Megan McArdle is a Washington Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter @asymmetricinfo.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Monday, June 17

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Father's Day is a holiday of honouring fatherhood and paternal bonds, as well as the influence of fathers in society.
Editorial: Men, boys could use a little help to be better men

The work of fathers could be aided by a state commission focused on the issues of boys and men.

Trump speaks like a dictator; is that what we want?

Trump supporters had better start thinking seriously about life under dictatorship. The… Continue reading

Herald’s coverage of Pride events is appreciated

Thank you to Aina de Lapparent Alvarez for the informative, well-written article… Continue reading

President Biden will wait until after election to pardon son

Sleepy Joe Biden will pardon his son, after he is reelected. But… Continue reading

Comment: Ruling on abortion pill access may be short-lived

Despite a unanimous decision upholding access to mifepristone, it left open avenues for challenge.

Bouie: Alito’s right: ‘Only one side or the other is going to win’

In the struggle between democracy and minority rule, there is no compromise to be reached.

The City of Everett is set to purchase two single sidewalk restrooms from Romtec, a company based in Roseburg, Ore., for $315,000. (Romtec)
Editorial: Utilitarian but sturdy restrooms should be a relief

Everett is placing four stalls downtown that should be accessible but less prone to problems.

Artist Natalie Niblack works amongst her project entitled “33 Birds / Three Degrees” during the setup for Exploring The Edge at Schack Art Center on Sunday, March 19, 2023, in Everett, Washington. The paintings feature motion-activated speakers that play each bird’s unique call. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: For 50 years Schack Art Center there for creation

The art center is more art studio than museum, supporting artists and fostering creativity in kids.

Snohomish School District’s Clayton Lovell plugs in the district’s electric bus after morning routes on Thursday, March 6, 2024, at the district bus depot in Snohomish, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Money well spent on switch to electric school buses

With grants awarded to local school districts, a study puts a dollar figure on health, climate savings.

RGB version
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, June 16

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Father’s love includes talking about drugs, alcohol

All dads want to protect and care for their kids. Among the greatest threats are drugs and alcohol.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.