Author(s): Sophia Atwell
Mentor(s): Toni Farris, Honors College
AbstractHigh prescription drug costs in the United States impact many economically vulnerable patients and low-income communities. To find a solution to this national problem, we must understand and consider the conflicting perspectives of each involved party. My conflict analysis of pharmaceutical pricing explores the interests, needs, and values of both pro-affordable medicine and pro-free market groups to propose an interest-based solution that incorporates the concerns of all parties. My solution uses the capitalist model to encourage affordable, innovative, accessible, and high-quality prescription drugs by enforcing price caps and regulations that prevent patent abuse. These policies would force pharmaceutical companies to discover new medicine, maintain high-quality products, distribute prescription drugs in an accessible manner, and provide low prices to patients in order to remain competitive in a free market.
Audio TranscriptToday, I am going to present a conflict analysis of U.S. Pharmaceutical pricing.
0:06
The U.S. has much higher prescription drug costs than other developed nations.
0:10
This is largely due to patent abuse. Pharmaceutical companies will renew
0:14
medicine patents to prevent other manufacturers from developing generic brands at lower costs.
0:19
The U.S. also lacks many price cap laws and holds economic ideologies that promote capitalism and
0:25
discourage socialist models, which can also contribute to these high prices.
0:28
This issue heavily impacts low-income communities
0:31
that face higher health risks due to social determinants of health.
0:34
Some recent developments have worsened this problem. During Covid-19, prescription medicine
0:39
spending increased, and in 2021, over a thousand drug prices increased by an average of over 31%.
0:46
However, there have also been some positive developments recently. In February of 2023,
0:51
insulin prices were capped at $35 a month for Medicare patients,
0:55
but this only helps a small percentage of the population.
1:00
In my analysis of this conflict, I have identified many parties including patients,
1:05
pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies, politicians, and healthcare workers.
1:09
We often categorize these groups by political party or economic ideology,
1:14
but this identity-based categorization encourages
1:16
cognitive bias and does not capture the complexity of perspectives.
1:20
For example, not all healthcare workers will hold the same views on prescription medicine pricing.
1:25
Rather, it is more representative to view individuals by their positions,
1:29
which are constructed by their believed responsibilities and rights.
1:33
I have divided this conflict into two main positions:
1:35
pro-free market pricing groups and pro-affordable access to medicine groups.
1:39
Pro-free market groups view their responsibility as developing new and
1:43
high-quality medicine and believe they have the right to charge high prices to do so.
1:48
Whereas, pro-affordable access groups believe their responsibility is to promote universal
1:53
access to healthcare and believe they have the right to control medicine prices to achieve this.
1:59
To better understand these positions, it is useful to look at their needs, values, and biases.
2:04
Pro-free market groups have a need for economic well-being and value limited
2:08
government control of the economy. They may view themselves as hard-working or patriotic,
2:12
but view patients as a means to an end. They may also view pro-affordable access
2:17
groups as seeking hand-outs or label them socialists.
2:21
Pro-affordable access groups see the need for patient health and value public
2:25
health. They may view themselves as empathetic and anti-classist
2:29
and may view pro-free market groups as exploitative, greedy, or entirely evil.
2:34
I mapped out this conflict in detail with parties, stakeholders, interests, values,
2:40
ideologies, rights, and needs. I also analyzed the shared and separate views of both positions,
2:45
as well as noted the conflicting and positive connections between these beliefs.
2:51
Looking a little deeper at the interests of these groups,
2:54
pro-free market groups are interested in medical innovation, adequate profit, and low taxes.
2:58
Pro-affordable access groups are interested in affordable medicine.
3:02
These positions also share many interests including safe,
3:05
high-quality medicine, and timely, accessible distribution of prescription drugs.
3:09
My proposed interest-based solution is to limit patent
3:13
abuse and enforce price caps through legislation.
3:17
This utilizes capitalism by forcing pharmaceutical companies to develop new, high-quality medicines,
3:23
distribute effectively, and provide low prices to remain competitive in a free market.
3:29
As a part of my advocacy for this project, I presented at a Bonner Leadership Program seminar.
3:34
One of my main challenges was remaining objective in my analysis,
3:38
while still painfully aware of how this impacts real people.
3:41
I hope that this project has raised awareness of this national problem that
3:47
impacts vulnerable communities. I also hope that it encourages new ways of viewing conflict and peace-building,
3:52
as well as offers a sustainable solution that meets the needs of each party.
0:06
The U.S. has much higher prescription drug costs than other developed nations.
0:10
This is largely due to patent abuse. Pharmaceutical companies will renew
0:14
medicine patents to prevent other manufacturers from developing generic brands at lower costs.
0:19
The U.S. also lacks many price cap laws and holds economic ideologies that promote capitalism and
0:25
discourage socialist models, which can also contribute to these high prices.
0:28
This issue heavily impacts low-income communities
0:31
that face higher health risks due to social determinants of health.
0:34
Some recent developments have worsened this problem. During Covid-19, prescription medicine
0:39
spending increased, and in 2021, over a thousand drug prices increased by an average of over 31%.
0:46
However, there have also been some positive developments recently. In February of 2023,
0:51
insulin prices were capped at $35 a month for Medicare patients,
0:55
but this only helps a small percentage of the population.
1:00
In my analysis of this conflict, I have identified many parties including patients,
1:05
pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies, politicians, and healthcare workers.
1:09
We often categorize these groups by political party or economic ideology,
1:14
but this identity-based categorization encourages
1:16
cognitive bias and does not capture the complexity of perspectives.
1:20
For example, not all healthcare workers will hold the same views on prescription medicine pricing.
1:25
Rather, it is more representative to view individuals by their positions,
1:29
which are constructed by their believed responsibilities and rights.
1:33
I have divided this conflict into two main positions:
1:35
pro-free market pricing groups and pro-affordable access to medicine groups.
1:39
Pro-free market groups view their responsibility as developing new and
1:43
high-quality medicine and believe they have the right to charge high prices to do so.
1:48
Whereas, pro-affordable access groups believe their responsibility is to promote universal
1:53
access to healthcare and believe they have the right to control medicine prices to achieve this.
1:59
To better understand these positions, it is useful to look at their needs, values, and biases.
2:04
Pro-free market groups have a need for economic well-being and value limited
2:08
government control of the economy. They may view themselves as hard-working or patriotic,
2:12
but view patients as a means to an end. They may also view pro-affordable access
2:17
groups as seeking hand-outs or label them socialists.
2:21
Pro-affordable access groups see the need for patient health and value public
2:25
health. They may view themselves as empathetic and anti-classist
2:29
and may view pro-free market groups as exploitative, greedy, or entirely evil.
2:34
I mapped out this conflict in detail with parties, stakeholders, interests, values,
2:40
ideologies, rights, and needs. I also analyzed the shared and separate views of both positions,
2:45
as well as noted the conflicting and positive connections between these beliefs.
2:51
Looking a little deeper at the interests of these groups,
2:54
pro-free market groups are interested in medical innovation, adequate profit, and low taxes.
2:58
Pro-affordable access groups are interested in affordable medicine.
3:02
These positions also share many interests including safe,
3:05
high-quality medicine, and timely, accessible distribution of prescription drugs.
3:09
My proposed interest-based solution is to limit patent
3:13
abuse and enforce price caps through legislation.
3:17
This utilizes capitalism by forcing pharmaceutical companies to develop new, high-quality medicines,
3:23
distribute effectively, and provide low prices to remain competitive in a free market.
3:29
As a part of my advocacy for this project, I presented at a Bonner Leadership Program seminar.
3:34
One of my main challenges was remaining objective in my analysis,
3:38
while still painfully aware of how this impacts real people.
3:41
I hope that this project has raised awareness of this national problem that
3:47
impacts vulnerable communities. I also hope that it encourages new ways of viewing conflict and peace-building,
3:52
as well as offers a sustainable solution that meets the needs of each party.
One reply on “A Conflict Analysis of U.S. Pharmaceutical Pricing”
Sophia, this was a fascinating project! The discourse around the pharmaceutical industry and political actors who want to control its method of price-setting tends to focus on making enemies out of groups with different goals, and there is a lot of room for nuance in understanding the various goals, drives, etc. of all the actors in this realm. It sounds like there is a lot of room for compromise among groups to move forward in providing the best options for affordable pharmaceuticals to more people.