Category: Economics

F.D.R.’s Wage Controls Created a Wedge Between Patients and Doctors, With Awful Unintended Consequences

Under F.D.R.’s wage controls, firms competed for workers through perks, like healthcare benefits, since they could not legally compete by offering higher wages. That resulted in the first middlemen (in this case firms) between the customers (patients) and the suppliers (doctors). The result of adding the middlemen, and also adding a variety of regulations, is a “market” that is opaque, inefficient, and slow to innovate. Rather than drain the swamp, the response has been to add more middlemen (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Pharmacy Benefit Managers, aka PBMs), that have only thickened the mire.

(p. B11) The roots of today’s fragmented system can be traced back to a quirk in U.S. history. Unlike most high-income countries, which created centralized government systems to ration care in the 20th century, the U.S. followed a different path shaped by historical circumstances. During World War II, wage controls prompted employers to offer health insurance as a tax-free benefit to attract workers.

Medicare and Medicaid, followed decades later by Affordable Care Act exchanges, were added over time to cover those who couldn’t get insurance through their job, creating a highly decentralized and convoluted system.  . . .

. . . the pressure to increase their earnings means insurers have looked for ways to overbill the government and skimp on patient care, always staying a step ahead of regulators. In recent years, they have become vertically integrated conglomerates, controlling doctors, pharmacies and payment-processing systems.

. . .

One of the most frustrating aspects of the system is a tactic called prior authorization, a process requiring providers to obtain insurer approval before delivering certain services. While that might be disagreeable, there is little public data on how often insurers deny care. This lack of transparency allows insurers to wield prior authorization aggressively, particularly when expensive treatments are recommended.

For the full commentary see:

David Wainer. “How to Fix Health Insurance.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Dec. 21, 2024): B11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date December 20, 2024, and has the title “How American Health Insurance Got So Infuriating.”)

Surgeons Respond More to Individual Incentives Than to Group Incentives

Medicare introduced a new billing code that reimburses surgeons more for repairing hernias that are at least 3 cm long. As a result the percent of repaired hernias that were less than 3 cm dropped from 60% to 49%. It is probably not too hard for surgeons to justify this change. Probably surgeries on hernias just under 3 cm, are just as hard to do as surgeries on hernias that are just above 3 cm. So probably it seems arbitrarily unfair to reimburse more for the slightly larger ones. So look at the close calls closer until you find an angle where one that on first glance was less than 3 cm, now appears to be more than 3 cm.

On the other hand, consider the response when Blue Cross Blue Shield in Michigan offered to pay more to urology group practices that had more patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. (A growing consensus suggests that most low-risk prostate cancer patients would be better off with active surveillance, rather than quick prostate surgery by urologists.) The response by Michigan urologists–no change in the percent of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.

Why the difference? I suggest that surgeons, like other people, respond more to individual incentives than to group incentives. A person who responds to group incentives bears the costs themselves, but shares the benefits with others who may be free-riders. If the incentive is individual, no one free rides.

I became aware of the recent academic articles on how incentives do or don’t influence surgeons by reading:

Millenson, Michael L. “It’s Money That Changes Everything (or Doesn’t) for Surgeons.” Forbes.com, Jan. 26, 2025 [cited Jan 27, 2025]. Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmillenson/2025/01/26/its-money-that-changes-everything-or-doesnt-for-surgeons/ .

The academic article showing that individual incentives matter to some surgeons is:

Hallway, Alexander, Erin Isenberg, Ryan Howard, Sean O’Neill, Jenny Shao, Leah Schoel, Michael Rubyan, Anne Ehlers, and Dana Telem. “Medicare Coding Changes and Reported Hernia Size.” JAMA (published online on Jan. 16, 2025).

The academic article showing that group incentives don’t seem to matter to surgeons is:

Srivastava, Arnav, Samuel R. Kaufman, Addison Shay, Mary Oerline, Xiu Liu, Monica Van Til, Susan Linsell, Corinne Labardee, Christopher Dall, Kassem S. Faraj, Avinash Maganty, Tudor Borza, Kevin Ginsburg, Brent K. Hollenbeck, and Vahakn B. Shahinian. “Physician Payment Incentives and Active Surveillance in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.” JAMA Network Open 8, no. 1 (Jan. 8, 2025): e2453658-e58.

At Age 84 Scolnick Has the Passion to Persevere at Curing His Son’s Illness

Many of those with the passion to persevere in overcoming the necessary and unnecessary (regulatory) obstacles to medical innovation, do so because they have a sense of urgency due to skin in the game–they or a relative is directly affected by the disease they are passionate to cure. Dr. Edward Scolnick whose story I quote below, is a great example. In the story, we find another example, Ted Stanley, who donated $100 million to Scolnick because Stanley’s son is also suffering mental illness. And perhaps an indirect example? Rienhoff does not directly have skin in the game, but he is playing a key role because of Scolnick’s passion, and Scolnick’s passion is due to his skin in the game.

If we want more cures we will reduce the unnecessary (regulatory) obstacles so that those with less skin in the game (and so less passion to persevere) will also innovate.

[“Skin in the game” has been emphasized by Taleb in his book with that title.]

(p. A1) Dr. Edward Scolnick figures he needs five, maybe 10 more years to solve one of the brain’s greatest mysteries.

Scolnick, 84 years old, has spent most of the past two decades working to understand and find better ways to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, mental illnesses suffered by tens of millions of people, including his son.

“I know I can crack it,” said Scolnick, a noted drug developer who spent his career plumbing the building blocks of DNA for new treatments.

Long before his latest quest, Scolnick spent 22 years at Merck, mostly as head of the drug giant’s laboratory research. He led development of more than two dozen medicines, including the first approved statin to lower cholesterol, an osteoporosis treatment and an anti-HIV therapy.

. . .

(p. A9) In 2021, Scolnick learned that a group of scientists analyzing DNA from thousands of people with schizophrenia had found mutations in 10 genes that substantially increased the risk of developing the illness. They estimated that a mutation on a single gene, called Setd1a, raised the risk 20-fold.

“It got my blood boiling,” Scolnick said. He began pursuing an emerging class of treatments called LSD1 inhibitors, hoping to develop a new drug. Scolnick enlisted Dr. Hugh Young Rienhoff Jr., who recently developed an LSD1 inhibitor to treat blood disorders.

. . .

Rienhoff anticipates testing a new drug for safety as early as next year, first in animals. He said he saw Scolnick’s passion about fielding a breakthrough treatment but didn’t fully understand why until Scolnick shared about his son’s lifelong struggles with mental illness.

Jason Scolnick, 54, said his doctor has been regularly fine-tuning his medications for bipolar disorder over the years to minimize their debilitating side effects. Using the drugs currently prescribed for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder is like undergoing chemotherapy, he said. “There’s no guarantee it will work and it makes you feel terrible, but the cancer will feel worse or kill you.”

There remains a long road ahead for any new medicine. It takes more than a decade, on average, to get a drug from the research lab through government approvals to patients.

. . .

After leaving Merck, Scolnick was hired in 2004 by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard to lead research on psychiatric disorders. He fostered ties with Ted Stanley, a memorabilia entrepreneur whose son also suffered with mental illness. In 2007, Stanley gave $100 million to launch the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad, headed by Scolnick for five years.

. . .

Scolnick and Rienhoff had sat together at a Blackstone dinner years earlier. During the meal, Scolnick shared stories with his table companions about Merck’s development of Crixivan, the anti-HIV drug. “I was hearing a piece of history,” Rienhoff said, “not just HIV history.”

Scolnick became emotional describing how the drug developers, facing various obstacles, wrestled with whether or not to keep going. He pushed for the study to continue, given the urgency. At the time, AIDS was killing tens of thousands of people a year in the U.S.

“I said to Ed, ‘You are thinking like a doctor not a scientist,’” Rienhoff said. “That was the beginning of our relationship.”

. . .

Rienhoff has a team of chemists making and testing compounds at labs in the U.S. and abroad.

“I am optimistic something will come of this,” Rienhoff said. “I can do it, but I wouldn’t have done it if not for Ed. I am, really, doing this in a way for Ed.”

. . .

Biotech company Oryzon Genomics in Spain is developing LSD1 inhibitors for cancer and other conditions. Columbia University researchers tried Oryzon’s drug in mice and found it reversed cognitive impairments caused by the Setd1a genetic mutation connected to schizophrenia. Oryzon is running a small trial in Spain of the LSD1 inhibitor in patients with schizophrenia.

Dr. Joseph Gogos, who led the Columbia research, said it was possible such treatments would be approved for people.

Scolnick is more certain—of both a revolutionary new treatment and his living to witness it.

“Before I die, we will see new medicines, new diagnostics, better outcomes for patients burdened by schizophrenia or bipolar illness,” he said. “I will not be happy to die. But I will die happy that my life helped.”

For the full story see:

Amy Dockser Marcus. “Aging Scientist Races Against Time.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Nov. 29, 2024): A1 & A9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 26, 2024, and has the title “A Scientist’s Final Quest Is to Find New Schizophrenia Drugs. Will He Live to See Them?”)

The Free Market Gets a Bum Rap When Blamed for High and Chaotic Drug Prices

The Law of One Price in economics says that in the absence of transaction costs, similar goods will have the same price. If the price of a Tesla truck is $100,000 in Omaha and $200,000 in Des Moines, some enterprising arbitrager will buy a few in Omaha for $100,000, and sell them for slightly less than the going price in Des Moines. As the arbitrager arbitrages, the price of the truck in Omaha will converge with that in Des Moines, a close-enough confirmation of the Law of One Price. If this does NOT happen then either transaction costs are very high or we are not dealing with a free market. As the article quoted below shows, prices of medical drugs vary widely and persistently. Medical drugs are NOT sold in a free market. Arbitrage is NOT allowed. Who can sell to whom is highly regulated. To blame the free market for high and chaotic drug prices is an outrageous bum rap.

(p. A1) The cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. isn’t like the tabs for other products. The price for a single medicine can range by thousands of dollars depending on the drug plan.

It is a symptom of America’s complicated—and costly—system for paying for medicines.

Medicare is paying wildly different prices for the same drug, even for people insured under the same plan.

. . .

Take commonly used generic versions of prostate-cancer treatment Zytiga. They have more than 2,200 prices in Medicare drug plans. The generics ring in at roughly $815 a month in northern Michigan, about half of what they cost in suburban Detroit, while jumping to $3,356 in a county along Lake Michigan, according to a recent analysis of Medicare data.

The same is true with other popular medicines such as psoriasis treatment Otezla, blood thinner Xarelto and generic versions of the cancer drug Tykerb, known as lapatinib, which has 460 prices, according to the analysis by 46brooklyn Research, a nonprofit drug-pricing analytics group.

. . .

(p. A2) The reason for the huge price differences: America’s complicated drug-reimbursement system, which uses middlemen to negotiate prices.

. . .

Not only is it confusing and costly for seniors, the wide range of drug prices costs Medicare. The program, which farms out drug-price negotiations to the firms, pays tens of millions of dollars extra for prescriptions.

“It’s a broken system. It’s really confusing for seniors. It’s really confusing for providers. It’s costing the government way too much,” said Dared Price, who owns eight pharmacies in the Wichita, Kan., area, and complains the stores are underpaid.

The middlemen [are] known as pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs, . . .

. . .

“The inconsistent and disconnected way that PBMs arrive at drug prices makes Medicare look less like a trustworthy marketplace intended to yield low, sober prices and more like a casino,” said 46brooklyn Chief Executive Antonio Ciaccia.

. . .

To find out the prices that the big three and other PBMs negotiated, 46brooklyn looked at what standalone Part D and Medicare Advantage plans say they will reimburse pharmacies on behalf of Medicare for branded and generic drugs during the second quarter. They reported the prices that Medicare would pay.

Some 61 drugs had monthly prices that diverged by at least $30,000, including a $223,037 range for a drug, called nitisinone and sold under the brand name Orfadin, treating a rare metabolic disorder. About 300 medicines had more than 1,000 monthly prices when the difference between the lowest price and the highest was more than $1,000.

It didn’t matter that the same PBM was negotiating the prices. Prices varied widely among health plans, even if a plan used the same PBM.

The 30 mg dose of Otezla had among the most different prices among branded medicines. It had 633 different prices across health plans that used Express Scripts, while Optum Rx carried 569 different prices and Caremark had 431.

The largest PBMs notched some of the biggest number of different prices for lower-priced copies of Zytiga, which is sold as a generic under the drug’s chemical name abiraterone acetate.

Caremark has logged 643 different prices for Zytiga generics, while Express Scripts has 500 and Optum Rx carries 445. By comparison, Capital Rx, a PBM with fewer beneficiaries than the three largest firms, had two prices.

Capital Rx had few prices—either $106 or $117—because it pegged them to the benchmark that the U.S. government uses to calculate drug costs, called the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost, which is based on a survey of retail pharmacy prices, said Chief Executive Anthony Loiacono. Capital Rx’s prices were much less than the sums that many other health plans reported.

“We don’t make money on drug spend, and I do not set prices. I use what CMS gives us as the starting point,” Loiacono said.

For the full story see:

Jared S. Hopkins and Josh Ulick. “Medicare Payouts Vary Widely for Same Drug.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2024): A1-A2.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed word, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 26, 2024, and has the title “Same Drug, 2,200 Different Prices.” Where there is a slight difference in wording between the print and online versions, the passages I quote above follow the online version.)

Ozempic 25 Years Sooner Would Have Saved and Improved Many Lives

Apparently Ozempic had been discovered in the late 1980s and could have been on the market roughly 25 years ago. Pfizer decided that the likely potential revenues were not sufficient to justify the huge costs. But what if the costs had not been so huge? For instance what if we adopted the proposal suggested by Milton Friedman, and advocated by me, to stop mandating hyper-expensive Phase 3 clinical trials to prove efficacy? (The mandates to prove safety through Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials would be retained.) With lower costs, Pfizer might have moved forward. Or if Pfizer had not, some other firm probably would have entered the breach sooner. If Ozempic had been available sooner, by now it would be much cheaper. Many lives would have been saved that have been lost. Other lives would have been healthier and happier.

(p. A26) They called 2023 the year of Ozempic, but it now seems GLP-1 drugs might define an entire decade — or an even longer era. The game-changing drugs, which mimic the hormone GLP-1, offer large benefits for not just diabetes management and especially weight loss but also, apparently, heart and kidney and liver disease, Alzheimer’s and dementia, Parkinson’s and addiction of all kinds. And perhaps because of widespread use of the drugs, the obesity epidemic in America may finally and mercifully be reversing.

But of all the things we learned this year about GLP-1s, the most astonishing could be that the revolution might have started decades earlier. Researchers identified the key breakthrough for GLP-1 drugs nearly 40 years ago, it turns out, long before most Americans had even heard the phrase “obesity epidemic.”

This summer, a former dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey Flier, published a long personal reflection that doubled as an alternate history of what may well be the most spectacular and impactful medical breakthrough of the century so far. In 1987, Flier co-founded a biotech start-up that pursued GLP-1 as a potential treatment for diabetes, not long after it had first been identified by researchers who’d also found that the hormone enhanced insulin secretion in the presence of glucose.

The startup obtained worldwide rights to develop GLP-1 as a metabolic therapy from a group of those researchers, based at Massachusetts General Hospital. They even generated clinical results that suggested it might have promise as a weight-loss drug as well — only to have Pfizer, which had agreed to fund the research, withdraw its support, without providing the researchers with an especially satisfying explanation. Instead, Pfizer told Flier and his partners that the company didn’t believe there would be a market for another injectable diabetes treatment after insulin. Well, Flier tells me, “they were wrong.”

. . .

. . . Flier’s memoir is not just a lament for what might have been. In the aftermath of the pandemic emergency, as citizens and officials alike have embraced a more libertarian attitude toward public health, there’s been a similar drift in the public conversation about drug discovery and development. Operation Warp Speed is often held up as a new model — calls for an Operation Warp Speed 2.0 have been followed by those for an Operation Warp Speed for everything — . . .

Many of the same reformers will complain about all the red tape at the F.D.A. and C.D.C., tallying up huge mortality costs imposed by slow-moving government, arguing for human challenge trials in which individuals volunteer to take untested drugs and be deliberately infected and even talking about the invisible graveyard of unnecessary regulation and delay.

This is all fine and good — there are surely lots of things those agencies can speed up. And in recent years, reformers of various stripes have lobbied some worthy additional proposals into the biomedical zeitgeist — for a system based not on patents but on huge and direct cash prizes for medical breakthroughs, for instance, or one helped along by advance market commitments or benevolent patent extensions. Just last week the researchers Willy Chertman and Ruxandra Tesloianu published “The Case for Clinical Trial Abundance,” an invigorating manifesto for drug development reform.

. . . in focusing on government bureaucracy as the major biomedical bottleneck, we are seeing just one piece of the picture and overlooking what is perhaps the central challenge of research and development — that it is, at present, so complicated that difficulties or bad decisions at any stage can stifle the whole decades-long process, distorting the actual medical and public-health functions of drug development in countless ways.

For the full commentary see:

David Wallace-Wells. “We Could Have Had Ozempic Years Ago.” The New York Times, SundayOpinion Section (Sunday, Jan. 5, 2025): 11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 25, 2024, and has the title “Pfizer Stopped Us From Getting Ozempic Decades Ago.”)

Dr. Flier’s published “memoir” mentioned above is:

Flier, Jeffrey S. “Drug Development Failure: How GLP-1 Development Was Abandoned in 1990.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 67, no. 3 (Summer 2024): 325-36.

“The Clinical Trial Manifesto” mentioned above is the introductory essay in the compilation referenced below. Another essay that looks promising in the compilation is “Unblocking Human Challenge Trials for Faster Progress.”

Chertman, Willy, and Ruxandra Tesloianu, eds. The Case for Clinical Trial Abundance: A Series of Short Papers Outlining Reform Possibilities for Our Nation’s Clinical Trials. Washington, DC: The Institute for Progress (IFP), 2024.

In 2023, Costs of Medical Care Rose 40% Faster Than Overall Inflation

If rising healthcare costs were clearly due to improving health outcomes, few would be angry. The anger arises from rising fraud, inefficiency, and inertia. Many healthcare workers are paper pushers and the paper pushed is often inaccurate and opaque. Other healthcare workers enforce protocols that slow innovation. And of course mandated regulations, most notably Phase 3 clinical trials, enormously increase costs.

(p. A3) The killing of a health insurance executive in New York City prompted a furious outpouring of anger over the industry and healthcare prices. So just how much have healthcare costs and spending been going up?

The short answer: a lot. National healthcare spending increased 7.5% year over year in 2023 to $4.867 trillion, or $14,570 per person, according to data released Wednesday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

. . .

The 7.5% rise represented a much faster pace of growth than the 4.6% increase in 2022.

. . .

Over the past couple of decades, the price index for what the Labor Department classifies as medical care—which includes visits to doctors, hospital stays, prescription drugs and medical equipment—has risen roughly 40% faster than the overall pace of inflation. Healthcare tends to rise more quickly than overall inflation because of high labor costs in the sector, as well as advancements leading to new and more expensive drugs and treatments. Demand for healthcare is also increasing as the population ages.

. . .

Hospitals are . . . adding billions of dollars in “facility fees” to medical bills for routine care at outpatient centers, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. That means patients are often paying hundreds of additional dollars for standard care like colonoscopies, mammograms and heart screenings.

. . .

Employers are shouldering a lot of those costs. For example, the average worker spent $6,296 in premiums for family coverage in 2024, according to KFF [a healthcare nonprofit]. Employers spent $19,276.

But when a company is paying more for insurance premiums for its workers, that leaves it with less money for giving out raises or reinvesting and expansion.

“It’s ultimately all of us who pay for [healthcare] either in the form of lower wages for people who have employer insurance or in the form of higher taxes to cover Medicare and Medicaid,” said Katherine Baicker, professor of health economics at the University of Chicago.

For the full story see:

Harriet Torry. “Nation’s Healthcare Tab Is Surging Amid Rising Wages, Hospital Fees.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Dec. 20, 2024): A3.

(Note: ellipses added. The first bracketed words were added by me; the second bracketed word was in the original.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated December 18, 2024, and has the title “Why Are Americans Paying So Much More for Healthcare Than They Used To?” Where there is a slight difference in wording between the print and online versions, the passages I quote above follow the online version.)

The source for some of the data discussed in The New York Times article appears to have been:

“National Health Expenditures 2023 Highlights.” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Last modified on Dec. 18, 2024.

Welcome Immigrant Innovators

Empirical research by reputable economists at some top schools concludes that although “immigrants represent 16 percent of all US inventors . . . immigrants are responsible for 36% of aggregate innovation, two-thirds of which is due to their innovation externalities on their native-born collaborators” (Bernstein et al. 2022, p. 1). (I have not yet looked carefully at this research, but have looked at other papers by Rebecca Diamond (no relation), finding them important and well-done.)

We should make it easier for innovators to enter the United States and harder for murderers and thieves to enter. And whatever immigration rules we adopt, we should enforce. We are unfair to those who follow our immigration rules if we allow others to enter the United States without following our rules.

Beyond that, I think our rules can be fairly generous, even letting in many non-innovative immigrants, if at the same time we adopt policies that give a probable path forward to current Americans who are among the least well-off. In a working paper that I hope to return to soon, I argue that we can create this path forward by unbinding entrepreneurs so that they can create more and better jobs for the least well-off.

(I thank my former student and current friend Aaron Brown for alerting me to the article on immigration.)

The empirical research on immigrant innovators mentioned above is:

Bernstein, Shai, Rebecca Diamond, Abhisit Jiranaphawiboon, Timothy McQuade, and Beatriz Pousada. “The Contribution of High-Skilled Immigrants to Innovation in the United States.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #30797, December 2022.

My working paper mentioned above is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. “Robustly Redundant Labor Markets.” Working Paper. 2021.

Innovative Medical Project Entrepreneur Karikó Long Persevered to Develop mRNA Technology Behind Covid-19 Vaccines

The basic science and technology behind mRNA did not come easy and did not come quick. If the skeptics of Covid-19 vaccines knew this they might be less skeptical because one of the reasons they sometimes give for their skepticism is the speed with which the vaccines were developed. (Other reasons for skepticism I think are more defensible, such as the worry that the authorities downplayed the real side-effects that some vaccine recipients suffered from the vaccines. But on balance I still think the vaccines were a great achievement.) One of the heroes of the long slog is Katalin Karikó. Part of her story is sketched in the passages quoted below. She is a good example of an innovative medical project entrepreneur. When she was named a winner of the Nobel Prize she identified part of what it takes to succeed: “we persevere, we are resilient” (Karikó as quoted in Mosbergen, Loftus, and Zuckerman 2023, p. A2).

(p. A2) The University of Pennsylvania is basking in the glow of two researchers who this week were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their pioneering work on messenger RNA.

Until recently, the school and its faculty largely disdained one of those scientists.

Penn demoted Katalin Karikó, shunting her to a lab on the outskirts of campus while cutting her pay. Karikó’s colleagues denigrated her mRNA research and some wouldn’t work with her, according to her and people at the school. Eventually, Karikó persuaded another Penn researcher, Drew Weissman, to work with her on modifying mRNA for vaccines and drugs, though most others at the school remained skeptical, pushing other approaches.

. . .

. . . on Monday [Oct. 2, 2023], when Karikó and Weissman were awarded the Nobel, on top of prestigious science prizes in recent years, the school expressed a different perspective on their work.

The reversal offers a glimpse of the clubby, hothouse world of academia and science, where winning financial funding is a constant burden, securing publication is a frustrating challenge and those with unconventional or ambitious approaches can struggle to gain support and acceptance.

“It’s a flawed system,” said David Langer, who is chair of neurosurgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, spent 18 years studying and working at Penn and was Karikó’s student and collaborator.

. . .

Penn wasn’t the only institution to doubt Karikó’s belief in mRNA when many other scientists pursued a different gene-based technology. In a reflection of how radical her ideas were at the time, she had difficulty publishing her research and obtaining big grants—prerequisites for those hoping to get ahead in science and gain academic promotions.

Another reason her relationship with the school frayed: Karikó could antagonize colleagues. In presentations, she often was the first to point out mistakes in their work. Karikó didn’t intend to offend, she just felt the need to call out mistakes, she later said.

For the full story see:

Gregory Zuckerman. “Penn Toasts Winning Scientist After Shunning Her for Years.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Oct. 5, 2023 [sic]): A2.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date October 4, 2023 [sic], and has the title “After Shunning Scientist, University of Pennsylvania Celebrates Her Nobel Prize.”)

The source of the Karikó quote in my opening comments is:

Dominique Mosbergen, Peter Loftus and Gregory Zuckerman. “Pair Met With Doubts, Now Win Nobel Prize.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2023 [sic]): A1-A2.

(Note: the online version of the story was updated October 2, 2023 [sic], and has the title “Pioneers of mRNA Find Redemption in Nobel Prize.”)

For more detailed accounts of Karikó’s life, struggles, and research see:

Karikó, Katalin. Breaking Through: My Life in Science. New York: Crown, 2023.

Zuckerman, Gregory. A Shot to Save the World: The inside Story of the Life-or-Death Race for a Covid-19 Vaccine. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2021.

A.I. May Create More and Better Jobs

In my Openness book, I made good use of The New Division of Labor book by Levy and Murnane that gave plentiful evidence that the innovative dynamism exemplified by the computer revolution on balance resulted in more and better jobs. The Levy/Murnane book is now over 20 years old, so the skeptical might question whether what was true about computers is also still true about artificial intelligence (A.I.). Now one of the book co-authors, Frank Levy, has co-authored a new working paper in which he answers “yes.” The working paper has recently been summarized by Steve Lohr.

Steve Lohr’s article is:

Steve Lohr. “A.I. Is Poised to Put Midsize Cities on the Map.” The New York Times (Mon., December 30, 2024): B1-B2.

(Note: the online version of the Steve Lohr article has the date Dec. 26, 2024, and has the title “How A.I. Could Reshape the Economic Geography of America.”)

The academic working paper co-authored by Frank Levy, that Lohr summarized in The New York Times article mentioned and cited above is:

Abrahams, Scott, and Frank S. Levy. “Could Savannah Be the Next San Jose? The Downstream Effects of Large Language Models.” In SSRN, June 23, 2024.

The book co-authored by Frank Levy and mentioned in my initial comments is:

Levy, Frank, and Richard J. Murnane. The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Price Controls on Drugs Reduce Drug Innovation

Price controls on drugs may reduce some short-term healthcare costs for consumers, but will also reduce the innovation that brings us more cures, less pain, and fewer side effects. If we want to both reduce costs for consumers and increase innovation, we should end government mandates for the Phase 3 clinical trials–the phase of clinical trials that make up most of the cost of gaining regulatory approval.

(p. A19) The Biden White House has proposed requiring Medicare to “negotiate” drug prices.

. . .

Unfortunately, the debate is being informed by erroneous Congressional Budget Office analysis. CBO says . . . the supply of new drugs will only be reduced by 5% from 2021 to 2039, a loss of only two drugs a year.

The CBO minimizes the harmful effects on innovation, but the entire supply chain that funds medical R&D relies on rate-of-return assessments driven by future earnings. An analysis I released this week finds 10 times the effect on R&D, a loss of up to some 340 drugs over the same period.

The White House also claims that price controls won’t hamstring innovation because they only govern top-selling drugs. But the occasional blockbuster funds the roughly 90% of pipeline drugs that never pass Food and Drug Administration review. CBO even acknowledges that only the top 7% of Medicare drugs drive U.S. profits. Targeting financially successful drugs could make large segments of the development portfolio unprofitable, even if such drugs aren’t affected by price controls.

For the full commentary see:

Tomas J. Philipson. “Biden’s Price Controls Will Make Good Health More Expensive.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Sept. 16, 2021 [sic]): A19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date September 15, 2021 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

The research brief co-authored by Philipson and mentioned above is:

Philipson, Tomas J., and Troy Durie. “The Evidence Base on the Impact of Price Controls on Medical Innovation.” Issue Brief. Becker Friedman Institute, University of Chicago, Sept. 14, 2021.

Supporting Philipson’s argument is a 2024 working paper showing that Medicare-mandated price cuts in medical equipment has resulted in less innovation in medical equipment:

Ji, Yunan, and Parker Rogers. “The Long-Run Impacts of Regulated Price Cuts: Evidence from Medicare.” NBER Working Paper #33083, Oct. 2024.

To End Drug Shortages Make Healthcare a Free Market

Drug shortages are sometimes blamed on the free market. A bum rap. In a free market when supply declines or demand increases, prices rise, and the increase in price incentivizes a greater quantity supplied, eventually ending a short-run period where quantity demanded at the going price exceeds quantity supplied at the going price (in other words, a shortage). But healthcare in America is far from a free market. Every aspect is highly regulated. Prices are negotiated, often by middlemen called (Pharmacy Benefit Managers, aka PBMs), entry is not free, and the demanders (patients) often do not know (or care) about the prices, since they are paid by a third party (insurers, employers, or the government). Perverse incentives abound.

(p. A26) There’s been a bombardment of bad news for drug supplies. The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists found this summer that nearly all of the members it surveyed were experiencing drug shortages, which generally affect half a million Americans. Cancer patients have scrambled as supplies of chemotherapy drugs dwindle. Other shortages include antibiotics for treatable diseases, such as the only drug recommended for use during pregnancy to prevent congenital syphilis (a disease that is 11 times more common today than a decade ago), and A.D.H.D. medications, without which people struggle to function in their day-to-day lives. The toll on Americans is heavy.

Over half of the shortages documented this summer by health consulting firm IQVIA had persisted for more than two years. But even though drug shortages affect millions of Americans, policymakers and industry leaders have provided little to no long-term relief for people in need.

Shortages have occurred regularly since at least the early 2000s, when national tracking began. Hundreds of drugs, in every major therapeutic category, have been unavailable for some period. The average drug shortage lasts about 1.5 years. Even when substitute medications are available, they may be suboptimal (for example, deaths by septic shock rose by 10 percent during a 2011 shortage of the first-line medication, norepinephrine) or have spillover effects (such as possibly increasing the risk of antimicrobial resistance). In addition to harming patients, shortages have cost health systems billions of dollars in increased labor and substitute medications.

. . .

Large hospital chains can readily monitor shortage risks and preemptively place large orders. This panic buying can wipe out inventory, and leave hospitals with fewer resources strapped since they may get notice of a drug shortage only when it’s too late. There is little penalty for over-ordering because unused drugs can often be returned.

. . .

Addressing the underlying fragility of our essential drug supply will take structural change and investments. While all industries must grapple with how to build resilient supply chains, the pharmaceutical industry is unique. The people who are most affected by supply chain vulnerabilities — patients — are also those with least say in the choice to buy from reliable manufacturers. When people buy cars, they may pay more based on company reputation, ratings by outside testers and reviews from other customers. In contrast, patients bear the harm of drug shortages, yet they cannot choose the manufacturers of their essential drugs nor evaluate their reliability.

For the full commentary see:

Emily Tucker. “We’re Stuck in a Constant Cycle of Drug Shortages.” The New York Times (Thursday, December 7, 2023 [sic]): A26.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 6, 2023 [sic], and has the title “America Is Having Yet Another Drug Shortage. Here’s Why It Keeps Happening.”)