PER 2015
version isn't available, the price is around £3,000 per month, which drug regulators say is "simply too high" to justify making it available on the NHS.’ Whereas in India, ‘generic versions of sorafenib in India cost around £84 per month’ 13 . If more drug firms were to go down this route, one can only imagine the rate at which disease would be cured. Moreover, the fact that pharmaceutical firms are driven by profits and great returns for their shareholders supports the argument that drug firms are less likely to have an incentive to actually find a cure for a disease since it would be more profitable to treat it over a long period of time using many different expensive drugs. Even if a cure were to be found, it would be unlikely that this would be released. In the UK, where the NHS provides healthcare free to the point of delivery, drugs are provided free (unless they are a prescription, in which case they would come at a cost of £8.90). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, decides which medication should be provided on the NHS, taking into consideration both the costs and benefits of a drug. If a drug firm to set extremely high prices for a drug, then the NHS may not be able to provide the potentially essential drug to the patient in need. In this way, the individual misses out on being cured to the high costs of the drug. Thus, one may assume that this could be considered immoral of drug firms since patients end up becoming very sick or dying, simply because their tax money isn’t enough to pay for their medication. It is a given fact that pharmaceutical firms will continue to charge high prices for drugs despite lowering costs of production. However, the way in which one perceives these high costs ultimately comes down to their own socio-economic backgrounds. To someone who lives without private health insurance and a state run medical system, they will potentially continue to perceive drug firms as greedy and self-righteous. To someone who lives with a basic form of healthcare, they may see the argument in a different light. To the group of scientists who developed the drug, they may perceive the high costs as justifiable, even if they don’t receive a pay rise despite their efforts. Furthermore, one must answer the bugging, question that must be asked; is it worth spending huge sums of money on drugs to save a dying population despite overpopulation as it stands. “It is immoral for the drug companies to charge large sums for drugs that are cheap to manufacture.” Discuss. / Owen Chu Soliris, developed by Alexion Pharmaceutical, is the most high-priced drug in the world 14 . This monoclonal antibody drug treats an exceptional immune disorder in which red blood cells are destroyed at night by the body. This disorder, Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH), hits 8,000 American and has only an annual rate of 1-2 cases per million. Since Alexion started selling Soliris in 2008, its stock price is up from around $30 to $169 in 2015. While the issue of sky-high drug price is not confined in the North America. In the United Kingdom, a liver cancer treatment is off- limits in the National Health Services due to its unjustifiably high price tag. Sorafenib tosylate is a drug for liver cancer patented by German pharmaceutical company Bayer and marketed as Nexavar.
13 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21834442 14 Alexion Pharmaceutical’s Soliris, at $409,500 USD a year, is the world’s single most expensive drug.
24
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker