SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
An intensive care nurse treats a patient at an intensive care unit at the Klinikum Bad Hersfeld hospital on March 20, 2020 in Bad Hersfeld, Germany. (Photo: Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)
'What Corporate Welfare Is All About': Sanders Condemns Lack of Price Controls on Taxpayer-Funded Remdesivir
"Gilead did not make this drug alone. The public has a stake and must have a say in setting the price."
May 27, 2020
Sen. Bernie Sanders was among critics who objected Wednesday after it was reported that although U.S. taxpayers provided millions in subsidies for the pharmaceutical giant Gilead to develop remdesivir, which could help treat the coronavirus, the government is not expected to have any say in setting the drug's price.
"This is what corporate welfare is all about," declared Sanders, a Vermont Independent. "The taxpayers fund the research, Gilead will make huge profits, and consumers will pay outrageous prices."
\u201cThis is what corporate welfare is all about: The taxpayers fund the research, Gilead will make huge profits, and consumers will pay outrageous prices.\n\nDrug companies cannot charge any price they want. These prices must be negotiated with the government.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1590594365
Remdesivir was originally a "cast-off" drug, the Washington Postreported, that was only developed with the aid of "tens of millions of dollars of government research support." The role of the government in developing the drug has set the stage for a showdown.
As the Post reported:
Despite the heavy subsidies, federal agencies have not asserted patent rights to Gilead's drug, potentially a blockbuster therapy worth billions of dollars. That means Gilead will have few constraints other than political pressure when it sets a price in coming weeks. Critics are urging the Trump administration to take a more aggressive approach.
"Gilead did not make this drug alone," Public Citizen's access to medicines program director Peter Maybarduk said in a statement. "The public helped make it, and the public has a stake."
\u201cUS taxpayers have paid *at least* $70 million to develop remdesivir, but are getting no say at all in setting a price.\n\nGilead did not make this drug alone. The public has a stake and must have a say in setting the price.\nhttps://t.co/8tPA4UDtxO\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1590531452
While acknowledging the role of government funding in helping to develop the drug, Gilead spokesman Ryan McKeel downplayed the importance of the assistance, focusing instead on the company's creation of the drug.
"Gilead researchers invented remdesivir more than a decade ago, identified its broad-spectrum antiviral activity, optimized the formulation of the product and scaled up the manufacturing process," McKeel told the Post. "Although government funding was used to further characterize remdesivir's profile after its initial discovery, this did not result in the creation of the underlying intellectual property invented by Gilead."
While the extent of the drug's applicability to treat Covid-19 is unknown due to ongoing trials, preliminary results were good enough for National Insittute of Health director Dr. Anthony Fauci to declare the medication the "standard of care" in the absence of other treatments.
But reporting Tuesday from The Intercept indicates even the modest results showing the drug helps to cut hospitalization times may be exaggerated.
\u201c\u201cRemdesivir doesn\u2019t work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect. It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good.\u201d https://t.co/b9qTtbBD9j\u201d— The Intercept (@The Intercept) 1590584551
"Remdesivir doesn't work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect," scientist William Haseltine told The Intercept, adding the drug "is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good."
According to The Intercept:
The excitement about remdesivir is based largely on a study sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that showed people taking the drug had a faster recovery than those who didn't take it: 11 days on average compared to 15 for those taking a placebo. An article published on May 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed mild improvement in hospitalized patients that took remdesivir, though the drug didn't appear to be of any help to the sickest patients, who needed to receive high-flow oxygen through ventilators or other means. Nor did the drug significantly improve a patient's chance of surviving Covid-19.
However effective the drug, the story of its development and who stands to make money is a tale as old as time, tweetedModern Healthcare columnist Merrill Goozner.
"The typical backstory during health crises," said Goozner, "taxpayers and patients pay; private firms reap the reward."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sen. Bernie Sanders was among critics who objected Wednesday after it was reported that although U.S. taxpayers provided millions in subsidies for the pharmaceutical giant Gilead to develop remdesivir, which could help treat the coronavirus, the government is not expected to have any say in setting the drug's price.
"This is what corporate welfare is all about," declared Sanders, a Vermont Independent. "The taxpayers fund the research, Gilead will make huge profits, and consumers will pay outrageous prices."
\u201cThis is what corporate welfare is all about: The taxpayers fund the research, Gilead will make huge profits, and consumers will pay outrageous prices.\n\nDrug companies cannot charge any price they want. These prices must be negotiated with the government.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1590594365
Remdesivir was originally a "cast-off" drug, the Washington Postreported, that was only developed with the aid of "tens of millions of dollars of government research support." The role of the government in developing the drug has set the stage for a showdown.
As the Post reported:
Despite the heavy subsidies, federal agencies have not asserted patent rights to Gilead's drug, potentially a blockbuster therapy worth billions of dollars. That means Gilead will have few constraints other than political pressure when it sets a price in coming weeks. Critics are urging the Trump administration to take a more aggressive approach.
"Gilead did not make this drug alone," Public Citizen's access to medicines program director Peter Maybarduk said in a statement. "The public helped make it, and the public has a stake."
\u201cUS taxpayers have paid *at least* $70 million to develop remdesivir, but are getting no say at all in setting a price.\n\nGilead did not make this drug alone. The public has a stake and must have a say in setting the price.\nhttps://t.co/8tPA4UDtxO\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1590531452
While acknowledging the role of government funding in helping to develop the drug, Gilead spokesman Ryan McKeel downplayed the importance of the assistance, focusing instead on the company's creation of the drug.
"Gilead researchers invented remdesivir more than a decade ago, identified its broad-spectrum antiviral activity, optimized the formulation of the product and scaled up the manufacturing process," McKeel told the Post. "Although government funding was used to further characterize remdesivir's profile after its initial discovery, this did not result in the creation of the underlying intellectual property invented by Gilead."
While the extent of the drug's applicability to treat Covid-19 is unknown due to ongoing trials, preliminary results were good enough for National Insittute of Health director Dr. Anthony Fauci to declare the medication the "standard of care" in the absence of other treatments.
But reporting Tuesday from The Intercept indicates even the modest results showing the drug helps to cut hospitalization times may be exaggerated.
\u201c\u201cRemdesivir doesn\u2019t work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect. It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good.\u201d https://t.co/b9qTtbBD9j\u201d— The Intercept (@The Intercept) 1590584551
"Remdesivir doesn't work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect," scientist William Haseltine told The Intercept, adding the drug "is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good."
According to The Intercept:
The excitement about remdesivir is based largely on a study sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that showed people taking the drug had a faster recovery than those who didn't take it: 11 days on average compared to 15 for those taking a placebo. An article published on May 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed mild improvement in hospitalized patients that took remdesivir, though the drug didn't appear to be of any help to the sickest patients, who needed to receive high-flow oxygen through ventilators or other means. Nor did the drug significantly improve a patient's chance of surviving Covid-19.
However effective the drug, the story of its development and who stands to make money is a tale as old as time, tweetedModern Healthcare columnist Merrill Goozner.
"The typical backstory during health crises," said Goozner, "taxpayers and patients pay; private firms reap the reward."
Sen. Bernie Sanders was among critics who objected Wednesday after it was reported that although U.S. taxpayers provided millions in subsidies for the pharmaceutical giant Gilead to develop remdesivir, which could help treat the coronavirus, the government is not expected to have any say in setting the drug's price.
"This is what corporate welfare is all about," declared Sanders, a Vermont Independent. "The taxpayers fund the research, Gilead will make huge profits, and consumers will pay outrageous prices."
\u201cThis is what corporate welfare is all about: The taxpayers fund the research, Gilead will make huge profits, and consumers will pay outrageous prices.\n\nDrug companies cannot charge any price they want. These prices must be negotiated with the government.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1590594365
Remdesivir was originally a "cast-off" drug, the Washington Postreported, that was only developed with the aid of "tens of millions of dollars of government research support." The role of the government in developing the drug has set the stage for a showdown.
As the Post reported:
Despite the heavy subsidies, federal agencies have not asserted patent rights to Gilead's drug, potentially a blockbuster therapy worth billions of dollars. That means Gilead will have few constraints other than political pressure when it sets a price in coming weeks. Critics are urging the Trump administration to take a more aggressive approach.
"Gilead did not make this drug alone," Public Citizen's access to medicines program director Peter Maybarduk said in a statement. "The public helped make it, and the public has a stake."
\u201cUS taxpayers have paid *at least* $70 million to develop remdesivir, but are getting no say at all in setting a price.\n\nGilead did not make this drug alone. The public has a stake and must have a say in setting the price.\nhttps://t.co/8tPA4UDtxO\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1590531452
While acknowledging the role of government funding in helping to develop the drug, Gilead spokesman Ryan McKeel downplayed the importance of the assistance, focusing instead on the company's creation of the drug.
"Gilead researchers invented remdesivir more than a decade ago, identified its broad-spectrum antiviral activity, optimized the formulation of the product and scaled up the manufacturing process," McKeel told the Post. "Although government funding was used to further characterize remdesivir's profile after its initial discovery, this did not result in the creation of the underlying intellectual property invented by Gilead."
While the extent of the drug's applicability to treat Covid-19 is unknown due to ongoing trials, preliminary results were good enough for National Insittute of Health director Dr. Anthony Fauci to declare the medication the "standard of care" in the absence of other treatments.
But reporting Tuesday from The Intercept indicates even the modest results showing the drug helps to cut hospitalization times may be exaggerated.
\u201c\u201cRemdesivir doesn\u2019t work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect. It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good.\u201d https://t.co/b9qTtbBD9j\u201d— The Intercept (@The Intercept) 1590584551
"Remdesivir doesn't work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect," scientist William Haseltine told The Intercept, adding the drug "is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good."
According to The Intercept:
The excitement about remdesivir is based largely on a study sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that showed people taking the drug had a faster recovery than those who didn't take it: 11 days on average compared to 15 for those taking a placebo. An article published on May 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed mild improvement in hospitalized patients that took remdesivir, though the drug didn't appear to be of any help to the sickest patients, who needed to receive high-flow oxygen through ventilators or other means. Nor did the drug significantly improve a patient's chance of surviving Covid-19.
However effective the drug, the story of its development and who stands to make money is a tale as old as time, tweetedModern Healthcare columnist Merrill Goozner.
"The typical backstory during health crises," said Goozner, "taxpayers and patients pay; private firms reap the reward."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.