Earlier this year, Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, increased the cost of a life-saving HIV drug by about 5,000 percent. The price raised from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill.
But after much public criticism, Shkreli changed his position in an interview with ABC News in late September: "We’ve agreed to lower the price of Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit. We think these changes will be welcomed."
It may be fair to say the severity of price gouging for this particular drug is peculiar, but to say it is an isolated event is simply not true.
Express Scripts, a large provider for shipping prescription drugs for insurance programs, found in its most recent consumer trends report that US prescription drug spending increased by 13.1 percent in 2014, the largest yearly increase since 2003.
Yet in 2014, wages and salaries virtually did not increase while overall prices rose between 2 and 3 percent. What could possibly account for this dramatic increase in drug prices?
Drug companies frequently attribute high costs to the price to pay for conducting groundbreaking research and the process of putting their drugs on the market.
However, people in the U.S. pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world, according to the International Federation of Health Plans.
In the U.S., individual hospitals, insurance groups and plans negotiate with drug companies, giving them very little bargaining power in lowering prices. This is a stark contrast to other countries like the United Kingdom, in which they have very few buyers.
It would certainly be reasonable for one to think the Affordable Care Act would have addressed the problem, by either initiating price controls on the pharmaceutical industry or developing a different method to negotiate prices.
In reality, the problem was entirely neglected in the reform, even though a Kaiser Tracking Poll revealed in August that 74 percent of respondents felt drug companies put profits before people.
Twenty-four percent of people state they have a difficult time paying for medication, and it’s 33 percent for people with lower incomes and 43 percent for people in "worse" health.
If one is to presume public policy ought to follow public opinion, well, brace yourselves for disappointment.
It’s been posited by some that the ACA is a step in the right direction, but it still leaves intact the notion that profit is an integral and necessary part of healthcare in the US.
Just like we have a right to vote, to go to a public park or enjoy various services, why not have the right to medical care as needed? Why not make it more affordable, accessible and inclusive?
Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of public health at CUNY-Hunter College, thinks policy should shift to that position: a single payer health care system.
"And because it’s such a simple system, like Social Security, there would be very low administrative expenses," Woolhandler said. "We would save about $400 billion, which would allow us to afford the system."
It looks especially appealing when it would drive down costs and cover everyone.
According to the New York Times, more than half of low-wage workers who do not have insurance will not be able to be insured, even with the progress made by the ACA (or lack thereof).
It is long overdue that our country stops leaving the financial burden of medical help solely on individuals, especially when it seems as though those who need it the most are those who can afford it the least.
Aubrey Krampert is a UF journalism junior. Her column appear on Thursdays.
