�Թϲ�����

It wasn’t too long ago that President Trump said drug makers are “getting away with murder.” But it sure sounds like he’s about to grant them a presidential pardon. For months, Trump has kept these companies off balance with remarks that suggest he’s willing to consider ideas they find abhorrent in an effort to rein in drug prices. Now, though, his team is reportedly considering moves that would do little to address the problem — and would instead please the pharmaceutical industry. (Ed Silverman, 6/19)

On numerous occasions, President Donald Trump has vowed to take action to constrain drug prices. Although the specifics of Trump’s plans to lower prices are reportedly being hammered out as I write, the wrong action could have disastrous effects. Many of us remember the gas shortages of the 1970s due to price controls. Government price controls will almost certainly inadvertently produce price increases in some markets and drug shortages in others. Equally as important, misguided interference could undercut the incentives necessary to support a vibrant life-sciences industry. America’s free-market system and investments in basic research through the National Institutes of Health and universities have created the world’s most dynamic innovation engine for medical research. (Arthur Laffer, 6/17)

President Donald Trump is about to begin his push to lower drug prices. According to several reports, he's likely to sign an executive order outlining a plan by early July. The good news is that the easiest and most beneficial way to cut prices comes from something Trump likes to do already: reduce regulations. Few industries are laden with more regulations and government-imposed delays than big pharma. Since we're talking about potentially lethal drugs here, there are obviously some good reasons for a number of those rules. But critics have long complained that some of them don't provide more safety while they add to the industry's costs and reduce competition. (Jake Novak, 6/19)

For perspective on the national angst over drug prices, let’s pay a visit to the ballpark. The average Major League Baseball player earns an annual salary of more than $4 million (plus $100 a day in meal money)—far more than it takes to lead a comfortable, well-appointed life. Let’s say the team owners cut those salaries by half, to $2 million or so. Putting aside the union protections that the players enjoy, surely they would continue showing up to work. Almost certainly fans would continue to enjoy the same quality of play on the field. (Dana P. Goldman and Darius N. Lakdawalla, 6/19)

Polls show that high drug prices are voters’ No. 1 concern in health care. Unsurprising, given that the U.S. ranks highest both in drug spending and in patients stopping their medications because they are unaffordable. According to many pharmaceutical corporations and academic health care economists on Big Pharma’s dole, outcomes-based contracting for drugs is the solution. Policymakers should not dive into this pool; we propose a toe in the water at most. Odds are that outcomes-based contracts will do little to ameliorate the crushing cost of drugs in the U.S., and may delay reforms that actually link a drug’s price to its benefits. (Anna Kaltenboeck and Peter B. Bach, 6/21)

All good things must come to an end” is a proverb that brand-name drug makers have trouble taking to heart. Just look at the strategies used to prevent competitors from bringing less-expensive generics to market. Pharmaceutical research has led to tremendous advances in medicine. Because of the extraordinarily high cost of bringing new drugs to the market, our intellectual property system is designed to ensure that drug companies recoup their investment and earn a profit. After a period of time, though, generic competitors are supposed to be able to enter the market and bring down prices through competition. (Robin Feldman, 6/16)

Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc. investors have a tendency to grasp at any perceived scrap of good news, usually to their detriment. The latest ray of hope is Monday's news that John Paulson, manager of the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, Valeant's largest shareholder, is joining the company's board. Shares are up 5.7 percent Monday afternoon, but this shouldn't be cause for much celebration. (Max Nisen, 6/19)

Making medicines tailored to the needs and characteristics of individual patients is the dream for many scientists. This kind of personalized medicine approach would provide treatment with the highest possible effectiveness and safety, and would also save money. But it requires rethinking how we make medications. The starting point of personalized medicine can be traced to the completion of the Human Genome Project, which sequenced almost the entire human genome, in 2001. Since then, however, only a limited number of personalized pharmaceutical treatments have reached patients. (Huub Schellekens, 6/19)

In late April, Patrick Leahy, a Democratic senator, and Tom Marino, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, introduced legislation to promote timely access to low-cost, high-quality generic drugs. Passing this bipartisan CREATES Act is one important way for Congress to push back against soaring prescription drug prices in the U.S. Since 2014, net retail prescription drug prices have risen 10 percent annually, primarily driven by ever higher launch prices and more frequent markups on brand-name drugs. From 2008 to 2016, the average net price for the most commonly used brand-name retail drugs rose more than 200 percent. The average list price of a new oral anti-cancer drug now exceeds $130,000 per year. (Ameet Sarpatwari and Aaron S. Kesselheim, 6/20)

When an individual or organization is under public assault, it pays to heed the advice of the crisis consultants. Stop doing what got you in trouble, be contrite, and start acting in a socially responsible manner. No, this week's column isn't about President Donald Trump. (Merrill Goozner, 6/10)