F.T.C. Slams Middlemen for High Drug Prices, Reversing Hands-Off Approach
www.nytimes.com
In a report, the regulator sharply criticized pharmacy benefit managers, a turnaround from its longstanding tolerance of their practices.

In a report, the regulator sharply criticized pharmacy benefit managers, a reversal from its longstanding hands-off approach to policing the companies.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    485·
    4 months ago

    That’s kind of the only reason middlemen middlepeople exist. To buy things for a lower price, sell those same things at a higher price, and keep the difference.

    • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
      351·
      4 months ago

      There is a level of value being added when the middlepeople handle transportation, logistics, ensure availability, etc. It isn’t only buying and selling in a vacuum like the stock market.

      That said, a lot of them take far more value than they add, which is a problem.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        12·
        4 months ago

        Agreed for most cases. But for the medical industry, pharmacy benefit managers, which are largely owned by the insurance companies, do nothing but drive up the price because they are acting more like a monopsony. So it’s a case of the insurance companies often getting paid two (if they own the pharmacy benefit manager) or three times (if they own the clinic) and adding an extra cost each step of the way.

    • Tujio@lemmy.world
      5·
      4 months ago

      Sorta. As a middleman who works his ass off to make other people’s lives easier, it’s not quite as black and white. My job is kind of unique, though. We are geographically located in the only access point for a niche market. Our vendors physically cannot supply our customers, so we middle.

      I’m sure there are a shitload of useless middlers suckling off the consumer’s teat, but sometimes we are necessary.

  • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
    292·
    4 months ago

    Shame that they probably can’t do anything about it with the Chevron decision.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      155·
      4 months ago

      Don’t worry, I was told here on Lemmy after SCOTUS struck down Chevron that putting these sort of things in the hands of the judiciary was a good idea.

      I’m curious if the people who insisted that felt the same way after SCOTUS also said that the president can commit crimes?

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        8·
        4 months ago

        Imagine thinking that the very same people that don’t even need to be qualified as a judge could be qualified to handle any question that involves specific expertise…

        Of course those idiots didn’t get it, but that decision was 110% a gift to the ownership class… Yet again… This fucking rubber stamp scotus gives Republicans even more power as is intended…

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        5·
        4 months ago

        I suppose if we had way more judges who worked on a much quicker timeline and retained independent qualified experts in all these areas, and the judges weren’t just partisan hacks, then Chevron being struck down might not be so bad. But that’s not the world we live in. Slow decisions by corrupt judges that don’t know anything about what they’re ruling on. Just look at some of the ridiculous fda related rulings trying to go after abortion.

        But that’s basically why at the time it was originally ruled on you had liberals upset about Chevron and conservatives happy (basically a more conservative executive and more liberal court at that time).

        One slight silver lining is that it may make it easier for judges to strike down Trump admin regulations if he wins the election. But that is kind of cold comfort. Probably have worse issues than that if Trump is re elected.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      4·
      4 months ago

      This has nothing to do with Chevron. The Federal Trade Commission has had clear authority over issues like this for a very long time.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          6·
          4 months ago

          The FTC has statutory authority over the regulation of trade. It doesn’t rely on Chevron except in highly specific edge cases and this likely wouldn’t be one.

          Chevron only ever applied in cases where the law was ambiguous or had gaps. The removal of Chevron didn’t suddenly render every Agency under the Executive powerless and if you think it did then you need to go back to wherever Mass Media you got your education from and demand a refund.

  • bean@lemmy.world
    51·
    4 months ago

    An investigation by The New York Times published last month found that the benefit managers often act in their own interests, at the expense of patients, employers and taxpayers.

    So shocked. 🙄 Why it takes so many years for them to notice or do anything.