NHS should be on the table in UK-US trade talks, says senior US Senator

[Northerner]

American pharmaceutical companies should get access to the NHS in a UK-US trade deal, according to the chair of the Senate committee that approves trade agreements.

Republican Senator, and chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, Chuck Grassley told City A.M. that a UK-US trade deal “ought to involve almost anything” and that the NHS would benefit from increased competition.

The involvement of the UK’s health service in trade talks has been a sensitive topic for the government, with Labour claiming Boris Johnson wants to provide access to US pharmaceutical companies in order to close a deal.

Labour’s main attack line at last year’s election was that the NHS “was up for sale” under a Tory government.

There have been particular concerns about what this would mean for the price of drug treatments, which are far more expensive in the US.

The UK government has said repeatedly that the NHS would not be involved in US trade talks, with trade secretary Liz Truss saying today that the health service was “off the table”.

Grassley said he understood the UK’s reluctance to open up to the US’ pharmaceutical companies, but said it should be on the table.

NHS should be on the table in UK-US trade talks, says senior US Senator

American pharmaceutical companies should get access to the NHS in a UK-US trade deal, according to the chair of a powerful Senate committee.

www.cityam.com

People can't say they weren't warned This government has already reneged on an International Treaty and refused to exclude lowering of food standards and human rights, I don't trust them one bit

 

[Inka]

That’s a terrifying idea I hope people care enough about the NHS to make sure that can never happen.

 

[grovesy]

Unfortunately I think it has already started.

 

[Inka]

Unfortunately I think it has already started.

Greed above everything.

 

[novonord]

depends what you mean by access... eli Lilly for instance, number 2 in insulin and manufacturers of humulin is an American company and many here are on their insulin; as are Merck, Bristol Myers, Pfizer, Vertex the main company in the treatment of cystic fibrosis, regeneron, amgen, biogen, Gilead which produces remdesivir and hep C, hiv drugs and a host of biotechs, so America has a wonderful vibrant biotech industry.
On the other hand, Glaxo is British and Astra Zeneca is anglo-Swedish, Novo Danish and all have access to the enormous American market and couldn't survive without it.

 

[Northerner]

depends what you mean by access... eli Lilly for instance, number 2 in insulin and manufacturers of humulin is an American company and many here are on their insulin; as are Merck, Bristol Myers, Pfizer, Vertex the main company in the treatment of cystic fibrosis, regeneron, amgen, biogen, Gilead which produces remdesivir and hep C, hiv drugs and a host of biotechs, so America has a wonderful vibrant biotech industry.
On the other hand, Glaxo is British and Astra Zeneca is anglo-Swedish, Novo Danish and all have access to the enormous American market and couldn't survive without it.

They want to get rid of the way the NHS currently buys its medications, which results in much lower prices - and profits for them

 

[mikeyB]

The "UK" government cannot negotiate away the NHS services or suppliers in any country in the UK apart from England. It would be illegal, and any effort to override the law would either result in legal challenges, or inevitable independence demands. Don't forget that the power of the NHS to negotiate drug prices was backed by the might of the EU

 

[novonord]

it's not us and them really as regards drug companies and the great British public... the fact is the only territory the drug companies are making reasonable returns in presently is north America which pays for the massive research costs of the drug companies in bringing new treatments to market and the rest of the world is sponging off this.
so, if you want advances in treatment you should be supporting reasonable return on the investment and risk that the drug companies put in to developing new therapies which means paying for innovation and equal pricing round the first world countries that can afford it.
you must also consider the role of the FDA a very stringent organisation in vetting new applications and many an application which has been through all the phases of drug development falls at the last hurdle.
you will gather that I do not believe 'profit' to be a dirty word at all, it's essential if the drug companies are to take the risk of basic research and development,
before the last election jeremy Corbyn proposed setting up a nationalised drug development outfit- thankfully this didn't happen.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

the fact is the only territory the drug companies are making reasonable returns in presently is north America which pays for the massive research costs of the drug companies in bringing new treatments to market

Also sales and marketing costs need to be paid for. (It's probably not the case that R&D is lower than sales and marketing, but it's probably not that much bigger. And I'd guess marketing is significantly higher in a country that encourages advertising directly to patients.)

Do Biopharma Companies Really Spend More on Marketing Than R&D?

As the drug pricing debate on Capitol Hill continues, the debate over how biopharma companies spend also continues, though perhaps more quietly. @

www.raps.org

 

[trophywench]

Well - how much more are folk in general prepared to pay to keep the NHS and therefore people in general - going? I know I'd be willing to pay more income tax (cos that's never stopped as yet for me) - but would everybody?