The Biden administration unveiled a new framework outlining the factors federal agencies should consider in determining whether to use march-in rights.

The Biden administration on Thursday asserted its authority to seize the patents of certain costly medications in a new push to slash high drug prices and promote more pharmaceutical competition.

The administration unveiled a framework outlining the factors federal agencies should consider in deciding whether to use a controversial policy, known as march-in rights, to break the patents of drugs that were developed with federal funds but are not widely accessible to the public. For the first time, officials can now factor in a medication’s price — a change that could have big implications for drugmakers depending on how the government uses the powers.

“When drug companies won’t sell taxpayer-funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less,” White House National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard said during a call with reporters Wednesday.

  • silverbax@lemmy.worldEnglish
    124·
    11 months ago

    Every time there’s a bunch of commenters talking about how little they like Biden (or his administration) for ‘not doing enough’, I know:

    • that person almost certainly does not actually vote
    • that person does not pay attention to politics, they just repeat what they’ve seen on social media, which is their own echo chamber.

    How do I know they don’t vote? Because they are too lazy to even be up to date via Google on the political opinions they post - they certainly aren’t going to bother to actually leave their house and vote.

    That said, the Biden administration might do well to be more bombastic with their statements about their successes. I don’t love the idea that the merit of a success would need to be ‘sold’, but you have the GOP screaming idiot things all over the media sphere every single day, and that has to be competed with.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      1·
      11 months ago

      The only point of disagreement I have is that it’s been demonstrated that the Internet doesn’t promote echo chambers, it does quite the opposite in fact.

      The problem it introduces is that people are constantly exposed against their will to opposing viewpoints curated to make them as angry as possible.

      This results in them becoming explosively volatile towards those opposing viewpoints even in moderated or even well justified forms because they have learned to associate any opposing opinions with the algorithm selected ultra aggro version they just had a knock down drag out hundred comment chain argument with someone a day ago.

      IRL you just disregard the fucker and move on, the internet is teaching people to see everyone who disagrees with you as that fucker laying in wait to instigate yet another knock down drag out argument where you feel like you’re losing your mind talking to a wall that insists the sky is orange and that climate policy is communism because soylent green burgers or whatever.

      Then there’s the additional problem of when a significant portion of the people trying to sound reasonable on the internet turn out to actually be that fucker out to instigate because they want to make you look crazy for how mad you get at their bullshit while they calmly explain that “it isn’t unreasonable to expect a politician to earn your vote!”

      It’s rhetorical strategies within rhetorical strategies all designed to keep you under a constant feeling of being attacked.