Tag: drug costs
Debunking Trump's Fantasies About Foreign Investment (And Falling Drug Costs)

Debunking Trump's Fantasies About Foreign Investment (And Falling Drug Costs)

Today I thought I would discuss two of my favorite Trumpian lies about the economy: he lowered drug prices 1500 percent, and we’re bringing in $18 trillion in foreign investment. These are among my favorite Trumpian lies because they involve important issues and Trump repeats them all the time.

They are both also absurd on their face. All of us who learned arithmetic in fourth grade know that the price of an item can’t fall more than 100%. Once the price drops 100%, it is free. If it falls more than that, the drug companies would be paying us money to buy their drugs. Maybe in Donald Trump’s head drug companies pay people to use their drugs, but not in reality land.

The investment story is almost as absurd. Trump’s $18 trillion would be 60 percent of current GDP. It would be more than four times the annual level of investment. The economy could not handle an inflow of investment like this without massive disruptions and inflation. For better or worse, we don’t have to. The number is also something that only exists in Trump’s head.

Drugs and Factories are Important

Spending on prescription drugs and other pharmaceutical products are a very big deal. We spent over $700 billion on these items last year, which comes to almost $5,400 per household. And this is not just a question of getting the newest iPhone or the deluxe suite on your vacation. People buy drugs to protect their health or even their life, so it really does matter how much people have to pay.

Similarly, the story on factories is important in part for Trump’s imagination, but also for some very real-world reasons. On the imagination side, Trump constantly spins the tale of the Golden Age, when white men had good-paying factory jobs and could support their families with their white wives staying at home raising the kids. This was destroyed by the globalists and their trade deals.

There is some truth to this story. Factory jobs used to be much better paying than other jobs in the economy for workers without college degrees, but that was largely because they were union jobs. And we know that Trump very much does not like unions. Trade did change this picture, not just because it cost us millions of jobs, but also because it disproportionately hit union jobs.

As it stands now, the manufacturing wage premium has been largely eliminated. This means that even if we got back jobs in manufacturing, they would likely not be better on average than the jobs they replaced.

The real-world story is that manufacturing does matter. I’m not going to get carried away in Cold War competitions with China, but we should have some capacity in key areas, like computer chips, cars (preferably EVs), solar panels, batteries, and the like. The Biden administration was trying to remedy this situation with his infrastructure bill, CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Anyhow, since we got new data in both areas, it is worth checking in.

The Prescription Drug Price Story

Starting with drugs and pharmaceuticals, year-over-year spending as of November was up 7.5%.

This is not necessarily any worse in terms of rising drug prices than we were doing under Biden, but it’s also not any better. And as a practical matter, rapidly rising drug costs matter much more when they are a larger share of our budgets. If the price of potatoes goes up by 7.5 percent, all of us potato eaters will be unhappy, but it is unlikely to have a big effect on our standard of living. But when we’re spending $5,400 on drugs, a 7.5 percent increase is a very big deal which could affect our standard of living.

Source: NIPA Table 2.5.U, Line 122.

To be clear, the impact of this increase on family budgets is a bit more complicated. Close to half of drug spending is paid by insurers or government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, so most people are not paying that $5,400 out-of-pocket. But insurers are not charities, if they are paying more for drugs, they will be raising premiums to employers or the person buying the insurance. And higher drug prices are big costs for federal, state, and local governments.

There is one other point worth making on drug prices. The measure of drug price inflation shown in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shows a much lower figure. That is because the CPI is tracking price changes for the same drugs. My guess is the CPI measure matters little to most people. If their doctor switches them from a less expensive to a more expensive drug, people care about how much they pay for their drugs, not how much the price of a specific drug has risen or fallen.

The Biden Boom in Factory Construction Is Fading

The October data, the most recent data available, show factory construction fell 0.9 percent for the month and is down 9.7 percent year-over-year. Factory construction had surged under Biden, peaking at more than double its 2019 level, after adjusting for inflation. It has been on a downward path since the fall of 2024 as factories have been completed or cancelled due to Trump’s efforts to undermine Biden era programs.

The slowing of factory construction goes along with a loss of manufacturing jobs. We were down by 70,000 jobs under Trump in the January data, but the jobs number will be revised downward by around 100,000 when BLS incorporates benchmark revisions with the release of January data.

In any case, from a Trumpian perspective, it’s clear we’re going the wrong way, with fewer factories being built and fewer jobs in manufacturing. Does this make Trump’s $18 trillion in foreign investment a bigger lie than the 1500% drop in drug prices? That’s the great question MAGA fans will have to decide for themselves.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

'Historic Victory' Is What Trump Now Calls His Failed IVF Promise

'Historic Victory' Is What Trump Now Calls His Failed IVF Promise

Calling it a “historic victory” with his usual unearned boastfulness, President Donald Trump announced a new effort to make in vitro fertilization—better known as IVF—more accessible.

“In the Trump administration, we want to make it easier for all couples to have babies, raise children and have the families they’ve always dreamed about,” Trump told the assembled press corps in the Oval Office Thursday.

IVF is a medical procedure that helps people struggling with infertility conceive a child by fertilizing an egg outside the body and then implanting the embryo.

Trump’s announcement amounted to two things: most-favored nation pricing on the drugs, and a polite request for companies to cover IVF in their health care plans, without any stick or carrot to compel them to do so.

If you wonder why Trump cares, this is part of the right wing’s creepy efforts to encourage white women to have more babies, a particular obsession of Elon Musk.

The most-favored nation part is actually good. Americans spend far more on the same drugs as consumers in other countries. Under this kind of policy, drug makers would be required to offer Americans the lowest price they charge in any other developed nation.

It’s an idea that’s been floated for years by both parties, including under the Biden and Trump administrations, as a way to push back against pharmaceutical price gouging. Americans routinely pay two to three times more for the same medications sold in Canada, Europe, or Japan. Proposals to let Americans import cheaper Canadian drugs have drawn bipartisan applause, but relentless industry lobbying—and similarly bipartisan cowardice—has always killed them off.

Lowering drug prices is a worthy goal, but when it comes to IVF, it barely moves the needle. The $15,000–$20,000 cost of a typical IVF cycle doesn’t include the necessary medications, so even a few thousand dollars in drug savings still leaves families priced out. It’s a modest discount dressed up as a miracle—and a far cry from Trump’s 2024 campaign promise to make IVF free.

“We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” he said at the time. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”

It’s almost impressive how easily he promises everything without a plan to ever deliver.

That promise wouldn’t have come cheap.

“The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology says its member clinics performed 389,993 IVF cycles in 2022,” NBC reported at the time. “At a cost of around $20,000 apiece, that would come to $7.8 billion for that one year.” But that’s just a fifth of the $40 billion Trump is sending to Argentina to save his pal Javier Milei. (Of course, demand would soar if IVF were free, so maybe the cost might be … half an Argentina?)

The second part of his announcement, urging companies to cover the expensive treatments, is where the whole thing tips into absurdity.

According to NOTUS, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services will provide “guidance” allowing a “new benefit option” that would permit—but not require—employers to offer IVF as a stand-alone benefit. And with no carrot, no stick, and no reason for any company not already offering this to suddenly start.

Asked why businesses should bother, one senior administration official said they should want to “bring a healthy baby into the world at the lowest possible cost.” Ah yes, let’s dig through those corporate charters for the part about “bringing healthy babies into the world”—at their own expense.

You want companies to do that, you either force them—or you pay them.

But really, if bringing healthy babies into the world is such a noble goal, why doesn’t Trump find the dollars for it the way he’s found them for Argentina? Because he doesn’t actually care. It’s easier to announce something that sounds compassionate than to spend a dime making it real.

Not much of a victory. Certainly not historic. Just more of the same Trumpian bullshit.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

GOP Legislators Complain About Drug Prices But Voted Against Reducing Cost

GOP Legislators Complain About Drug Prices But Voted Against Reducing Cost

At least two dozen House Republicans have called on Congress to address the rising costs of prescription drugs after voting against legislation to rein in the rising costs of prescription drugs.

The most recent to do so was Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), who went on Fox Business Monday morning demanding the House address the issue — which was addressed in December.

“Here’s the problem: We’ve got to get back to actually governing,” Collins said.

“The American people want to see us put a budget together. They want to see drug pricing taken care of,” he added.

In December 2019, a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. The bill would allow the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices and put in provisions to prevent prescription drug cost spikes.

Since Jan. 1, the costs of more than 630 prescription drugs have increased. The legislation opposed by these Republicans would reduce the cost of medication to treat breast cancer, arthritis, diabetes, and other medical conditions by as much as 96%.

For example, the cost of Humira, a drug to help with arthritis, would drop by by 81 percent, from $34,411 per year to $8,276 per year. Premarin, a drug to fight breast cancer, would drop in price by 96 percent, from $568 to just $21 per year, according to an analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Collins, along with 190 other Republicans, voted against the bill.

Since that Dec. 12 vote, at least 24 Republicans have written on Facebook or Twitter about the high cost of prescription drugs.

On Jan. 27, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) tweeted he had heard from “countless folks” in his district that “prescription drugs cost too much.”

“They’re right,” Upton added, not mentioning that he voted against a bill to lower the cost of prescription drugs. 

“The cost of health care and prescription drugs is too high,” Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) wrote on Feb. 4. “Republicans are committed to lowering costs,” she added, despite her vote against H.R. 3.

“Congress should now act with the President on issues such as the high cost of prescription drugs, the high cost of health care, border security, and keeping our very strong economy going,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) wrote on Facebook on Feb. 4, two months after voting against a bill to lower the high cost of prescription drugs.

In late January, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that House Democrats’ ignoring the issue of prescription drugs “is gonna cost them” in November’s election.

Republican after Republican has taken to social media to lament the high cost of prescription drugs, yet only two Republicans voted for legislation to lower their cost in the House.

IMAGE: EpiPen auto-injection epinephrine pens manufactured by Mylan NV pharmaceutical company for use by severe allergy sufferers are seen in Washington, U.S. August 24, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World