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
big pharma greed
‘The Sheer Greed Is Obscene’: Moderna Plans 4,000% Markup for Covid Vaccine
“This vaccine isn’t just Moderna’s, it was developed in collaboration with a government agency,” said one campaigner. “It should be available and affordable for everyone, everywhere.”
Jan 10, 2023
The Massachusetts-based pharmaceutical giant Moderna faced angry backlash on Tuesday following the CEO's announcement that the firm is considering pricing its Covid-19 vaccine somewhere between $100 and $130 per dose in the United States.
The upper end of that range, according to the People's Vaccine Alliance (PVA), would represent a 4,000% markup above the cost of manufacturing the shot, which experts have pegged at roughly $2.85 per dose.
"The sheer greed is obscene," said PVA policy co-lead Julia Kosgei, who stressed that "billions of taxpayer dollars went into the development of mRNA vaccines."
"This vaccine isn't just Moderna's, it was developed in collaboration with a government agency based on decades of publicly-funded research," Kosgei said. "It is the people's vaccine—and it should be available and affordable for everyone, everywhere."
Stephane Bancel, Moderna's billionaire CEO, defended the proposed price range in an interview on the sidelines of the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco, telling The Wall Street Journal that he believes "this type of pricing is consistent with the value" of the vaccine, which was developed with the crucial help of government scientists.
In 2020, Moderna admitted that 100% of the funding for its vaccine development program came from the federal government—which, despite its leverage, has refused to force the company to share its vaccine recipe with the world.
"We need to learn from this pandemic and break big pharma's monopolies."
Moderna's pricing plans come as the Biden administration is transitioning away from its free coronavirus vaccine program, shifting costs onto insurers and patients—and leaving the uninsured and underinsured with potentially significant bills.
In August, the Health and Human Services Department announced that "as early as January 2023, the administration anticipates no longer having federal funds to purchase or distribute vaccines and will need to transition these activities to the commercial market, similar to seasonal flu or other commercially available vaccines."
The Washington Post's Rachel Roubein noted Tuesday that "the federal government has paid far less for the company's vaccine than the potential price for commercial insurers. Moderna's updated booster shot cost the Biden administration about $26 per dose last summer, according to federal supply contracts."
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) warned in a recent policy brief that the commercial price of coronavirus shots "could discourage vaccination."
"The suggested average price for Covid-19 vaccines after commercialization ($96 to $115 per dose) is significantly higher than the commercial price for the annual flu vaccine ($18 to 28 per dose), and could be a cost barrier for the uninsured and underinsured, who have no guaranteed mechanism for receiving COVID-19 (or any) vaccines once federal supplies are depleted," KFF observed. "While most consumers with public and private insurance will be protected from having to pay directly for vaccine costs, those who are uninsured and underinsured may face cost barriers when the federally-purchased vaccine doses are depleted. In addition, as private payers take on more of the cost of vaccinations and boosters, this could have a small upward effect on health insurance premiums."
In a statement, Kosgei argued that "it doesn't have to be like this."
"The World Health Organization is supporting a program to share mRNA vaccine technology with producers in low and middle-income countries," said Kosgei. "In a future pandemic, this could rapidly supply doses for the entire world, but Moderna's patents are standing in the way. We need to learn from this pandemic and break big pharma's monopolies."
How Big Pharma Is Trying to Improve Its Image
Feb 17, 2016
Big news, people! Especially for those of you upset by the skyrocketing prices of the essential prescription medicines you take -- including thousands of patients who were hit last year with a 5,000 percent price increase for one lifesaving drug!
Determined to do something about those despised price hikes, drugmakers have reached into their corporate toolbox for the two most effective means to fix their price problem. Of course, putting more corporate cash into research to produce new medicines would be one of those tools, and a renewed commitment to honest competition would be the other, right?
Right! But Big Pharma gave up years ago on doing right, turning to two other corporate tools that have reliably generated a gusher of profits for them: advertising and lobbying. So here they come, wielding bigger-than-ever ad-and-lobbying budgets to deal with that pesky public anger at price gouging.
If you wonder why Congress keeps ignoring what the people want it to do -- while doing things that people don't want it doing -- take a peek at the unique PR campaign now being run by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA is America's largest pharmaceutical lobbying group and represents Eli Lilly, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., and about three dozen other drug manufacturers.
The intent of PhRMA's multimillion-dollar PR blitz and intensified offensive in Congress is not to restrain the gouging but to improve the industry's image in hopes of restraining lawmakers from taking steps to rein in prescription costs. Of course, the ads dishonestly fail to mention the selfish intent of being allowed to keep ripping off patients, instead pitching drugmakers as selfless saviors of humanity. They feature soft scenes of drug researchers in white lab coats urgently trying to find new cures, scripted testimonials from patients, and, of course, scenes of drugmakers altruistically aiding poor people.
The American public is dismayed and disgusted by the flagrant greed of drugmakers who are shamefully zooming the prices of medicines into the stratosphere, turning necessities into unaffordable luxuries. As a result, there is a growing demand for Congress to take action to stop the industry's out-of-control gouging.
Hoping to counter this demand for action, drug companies have launched their massive advertising campaign, not only running radio and print ads but also placing ads on Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites. Yet it's not likely that you've seen or heard any of them. That's because drug chieftains don't care what you and I think. Moreover, they know they couldn't possibly persuade us to let them keep jacking up our prices. So, their "public" relations effort has made the odd and seemingly counterproductive move of sidestepping the actual public, instead narrowly targeting a very tiny audience.
As one CEO arrogantly put it: "We've identified 7,000 Americans who matter," thus dismissing the other 330 million of us as nobodies. "We're focusing on those in policy positions ... to fight structural issues," he sniffed. By "structural issues," he means convincing Congress to take no action to reform the present pricing structure of monopolistic drugmakers, whose guiding corporate ethic is: "Bleed 'em for all they've got."
So, this is a surreptitious PR campaign meant to reach only the eyes and ears of policy elites. The goal is to have Congress -- once again -- ignore what the people want it to do, thus allowing the corporate few "who matter" to keep fleecing the many. The word for this is "plutocracy." The industry is spending millions on this corporate medicine show not to protect its notorious profiteering but to protect you from public officials who might try to stop them from overcharging you. It's enough to make you sick.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.