Embedded Files
The Cost of Health: Addressing the U.S. Prescription Drug-Pricing Dilemma
by Donald Vega
In the ceaseless debate over drug pricing, the need for change is arising. The United States drug pricing economy is characterized by the high and rapidly increasing prescription drug costs compared to other nations. U.S. policy makers have suggested lowering domestic prices by tying them in some way to international prices. But policymakers seem less interested in understanding and adapting the regulatory frameworks that produce lower prices in different countries.
I personally stand firmly against the unrestrained inflation of prescription drug prices in the United States. Developed nations like our own should not settle for a system where life-saving treatments are treated as luxury goods, and accessible only to those who can afford to pay overinflated costs. The present-day pricing structure doesn’t only exploit consumers, but also prioritizes corporate profits over our public health. A sustainable and ethical healthcare procedure should ensure that necessary medications are fairly priced, maintaining an equitable forefront without forcing patients to choose between their health and financial security.
So now I implore you to ask yourself, why are prescription drug prices in the United States so much higher than in other developed nations, and what role does regulation, or the lack thereof, play in this disparity?
A paper written by Aaron Glickman outlined this exact concern, highlighting the stark differences between different countries' medication prices. Glickman and his colleagues compared countries (Australia, France, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) with simple, yet diverse financing, delivery, and reimbursement systems. He found that “these six countries have nearly universal health insurance, covering more than 99% of their population. None of them have the monopolistic pricing and marketing exclusivity found in the U.S. We found no evidence that the regulatory regimes resulted in meaningful delays in access to new drugs.” What the author conveys here is the reality of our corrupt and unreformed drug pricing system. Similar first-world countries support nearly their entire populations with free and accessible health care, greatly contrasting our country’s monopolistic pricing methods. This signifies the necessity for change, as our structure is clearly lacking mindfulness concerning the general welfare of us as a society.
This was additionally supported by Glickman in an alternate section, addressing the inconsistency between drug prices and their effectiveness: “High-priced drugs are not necessarily the best ones, as demonstrated by budget-busting cancer drugs that do not appear to offer additional survival benefits. Despite some experimentation with value-based pricing, the U.S. trails other countries when it comes to linking drug prices to therapeutic value.” Put simply, it is possible to have universal health insurance, quick access to new drugs, and lower prices than the U.S. currently pays.
While no separate country’s system can be adopted as our country's uniform system, I have identified several specific lessons concerning America’s cost and timewise inefficiency along the path from approval to purchasing medicine. This isn't necessarily a question of how the government can reshape this growing concern because the government cannot directly regulate prices. If price caps are set too low, it might not be financially viable to produce or distribute certain medications, especially more specialized ones. This could create drug shortages and limit patient access.
A breakdown from the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics defined whether the established drug prices of these healthcare companies can be accessible to the entire population, regardless of insurance. The author writes, “Americans pay much higher prices for brand drugs than do people who live in other industrialized nations. Most Americans—79 percent—consider U.S. prescription drug prices to be unreasonable, with almost 3 in 10 reporting they go without prescribed medications because of cost. With 70 percent of Americans reporting that lowering drug costs is their highest health care priority, Congress and the Biden Administration are considering how to lower U.S. drug prices.”
Having the federal government lower drug prices directly, whether by negotiating with private manufacturers or forcefully setting prices, would save money for the government, employers, and especially consumers, but in turn establish a major policy that turns away from reliance on the U.S’s market forces. This not only shows that Americans are paying definitively more than other countries, but they also have a lower satisfaction rate. Though this is true, I find it worse yet that we are being exploited.
Because of high U.S. prices, drug companies generate an estimated three-quarters of worldwide drug company profits in the United States. That illustrates that not only do U.S. consumers pay an inflated amount, but it also shows that reducing U.S. drug prices would lower drug company earnings and the return investors get on their ROI (Return On Investment), likely cutting funding for development of new drugs. This concentration of profits not only influences corporate strategy, but it also ties the U.S. drug market closely to a broader economic and trade dynamic. Grasping this connection aids in explaining the drug industry's deep-seated resistance to change.
The Center for Health Policy & Economics notes that drug prescription prices generate a fairly large percentage of the U.S’s economy, shipping billions of dollars worth of medications and vaccines around the world. These exports help reduce the trade deficit and strengthen America's position as a top innovator in health technology.
But behind these statistics lies a more disturbing reality. High drug prices don’t just boost profits and exports, they also create barriers for the common people’s healthcare. The same industry that fuels global innovation also puts essential treatments out of reach for the people who need them the most.
Private pharmaceutical companies control the prices of their drugs, but they also control the lives of millions, determining who can access life-saving treatments. A prime example of this is the EpiPen. It is common knowledge that the EpiPen thwarts allergic reactions such as bee stings, peanut allergies, etc. Adult EpiPens use around 0.3 milligrams of epinephrine. To put this into perspective, one milligram of this drug costs $5. An article touching upon the raise in price of the EpiPen uncovered the drastic overinflation in price. According to the article, “The medication is not costly; it's the injector that's expensive. But the high cost of EpiPens is not news. For a person with a high deductible insurance plan (or no health insurance at all), an EpiPen two-pack costs $622.09 at Walgreens. It is not much cheaper at other pharmacies and can still cost as much as $400, even with coupons and insurance combined.” This is unacceptable. In this day and age people hardly bat an eye when drugs like epinephrine are so cheap, yet sold at such a high price.
This can also be tied to the Alzheimer's Drug. While this drug isn’t an absurd price, it represents a critical spending point, raising a critical question: At what point will government and consumer drug spending become too great for our economy?
According to a study in 2024, the matter might be more pressing than you think. The study revealed that “health care spending in the U.S. reached $4.5 trillion in 2022, up 4.1% from the previous year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This spending made up 17.3% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product, something experts say might continue to grow as more pricey treatments hit the market.” This warning that the percentage could keep rising points to a pressing issue. As more higher cost treatments flood the market, healthcare spending is highly likely to become even more unsustainable.
Others could argue that large investments into the health industry is beneficial in aiding our country as a global leader. But there is a distinct difference between generating profit for the benefit of a nation, and the exploitation of a country’s consumers for profit gain. If other private companies follow in these footsteps, public resources would be strained and the already diminished public morale would continue on a detrimental decrease.
Unlike our country, other developed nations have implemented policies that prevent healthcare spending from spiraling out of control, ensuring that rising costs do not overwhelm public resources or erode public trust. To prevent further destruction, policymakers are urged to move beyond superficial fixes and propose comprehensive reforms with the intention to prioritize public health over private profit.
To summarize, our country's outlandish costs of prescription drugs is a serious crisis that prioritizes corporate greed over people's health. Developed nations like our own have proven to me and hopefully you that it is possible to maintain fair prices as well as strong access to instrumental treatments without sacrificing innovation. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members,” and our current system fails to uphold this simple standard.
If we as a country are serious about protecting our public health and securing an equitable healthcare system, reforms need to be made. It’s time for our leaders to take real action and put patients' lives before corporate profits. If our country truly wants to last, support is needed.
An Alternative to the Cell Phone Ban
by George Giorgou
A topic of high importance within our state today is the digital age of our education system, specifically pertaining to the use of cellphones by students in our schools. Recently, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law requiring a bell-to-bell cell phone ban in schools, effective by August 1, 2025. This law was passed to protect students from online bullying and to safeguard their education.
However, this approach is ineffective. No matter what, whenever social media communication is available to students—inside or outside of the classroom—the effects are just as damaging to their learning environment. Therefore, a ban on social‑media use inside and outside of school would be a better solution.
On January 21, our state governor proposed a revolutionary bill aimed at removing cellphones not just from the classroom, but from schools in their entirety. According to the Associated Press, Hochul stated in a press conference: “We’re not developing the skills we need because kids are distracted with cell phones…How hard is it for our teachers, trying to teach algebra and geography, when they’re competing with viral dances and messages from their friends and sometimes threats, bullying? How do you pay attention to the subject at hand when this is going on?”
The problem is clearly stated: cell phones distract students from learning essential skills in the classroom and cause bullying online. That being said, I agree that this is a problem. However, parents, teachers, students (and I) all echo the same concern: Yes, the problem exists, but is this a solution?
Yes, this change should have some effect; but realistically, I see a different future with these bans in place. We all know that bullying is a large-scale issue online, but with a lockdown on personal devices during school hours, who says that bullies won’t just move to victims in person? Therefore, we might go back to the age before the Internet, where kids were shoved into lockers, verbally attacked in the hallways, etc. Is bullying online really worse than in person? Is it worth merely switching it around? Or, should we tackle the real issue—bullying?
As for the educational aspect, of course, phones are a distraction to kids’ education. This is where a media ban could come into play.
The fact is, an environment where phones are not allowed will cause a bigger focus on the devices. According to a New York Times student interview, a student narrates, “I understand why a ban might seem appealing to certain teachers and administrators; however, I also believe that it would be more harmful than beneficial in the long run. Many students already have negative attitudes toward school—a major cause of stress and dread for some. I strongly feel a cellphone ban would only intensify these negative attitudes toward school as a whole. It wouldn’t motivate students to attend, and would almost villainize the school itself. It just isn’t worth it.”
Rather than villainizing schools, students believe that if students aren’t learning because they are on their phones, then it is ultimately their responsibility to stop. A Baker High School student echoed this: “I have mixed emotions on this topic. I feel that high schoolers should be held responsible for their own education. If they choose to not pay attention in class and not take advantage of all the tools that their teachers are giving them, then they should do whatever they want. As 15-year-olds and up, high school teachers should not be held responsible for 100+ students’ learning. The student themselves needs to be responsible for their own learning and their own grades.”
This—ultimately—makes sense. Kids above the age of 15 should be taught the consequences of their actions, not have the thing that would cause them to make these decisions taken away without their choice. In college and the real world, nothing is going to stop someone from avoiding work and ultimately being unsuccessful through the use of their phone. Also, if you think about it, kids who refuse to get off their phones in class will not be focused on their education either way, making it all for nothing.
Students can benefit from non-social-media phone use in schools. According to the student interview from the New York Times, a Fountain Valley student says, “When cellphones/messaging devices started out they were a hit. They gave some brief release for students that needed a second to rest so they could focus better. This is still true today. I have to go through five periods without a break where I am either sitting at a desk or walking to class. Those few moments with my phone help a lot. Our attention spans are not infinite. Cellphones in schools also give me a connection to my home and parents when I need to talk to them. There has never been a student that has done poorly on a test and didn’t want to vent it out to someone. For me, this is my mom and dad. They are always good at calming me down and stopping me from spiraling. Without cellphones, I would never have that person close to help me.”
All of these helpful online interactions happened off social media. In fact, some students who have experienced school without cellphones find that having a connection to the outside world improves their performance in school. In the same New York Times survey, an Ethiopian exchange student says, “As a student who was born and raised in Ethiopia, we weren’t allowed to have a cellphone at all. It did have advantages like socializing, we ate lunch together and hung out together. We also did a lot of activities together, but it didn’t do any good in my academics. Most parents and teachers worry that having a phone would be a distraction from having a better grade; but for me, I had higher grades when I had my phone compared to my old grade when I didn’t have my phone. Although it might be distracting in class, it helped me a lot by using it for research or listening to music when I wanted to study. It also helped me to contact my parents whenever I wanted.”
But is social media that damaging? A Yale Medicine article says, “Social media use among young people is nearly universal now, based on surveys from the Pew Research Center. In 2022, up to 95% of teenagers surveyed (ages 13 to 17) reported using social media, and more than a third of them use it ‘almost constantly.’” Isn’t it not concerning that enough teenagers use their devices constantly that a third of them went and said that in a survey?
When I am in school, in classes where kids always have their phones out, they are usually on one of three platforms: TikTok, Instagram, or Snapchat. These platforms are so addictive that some of my family members who are teachers have said that kids often make a point to get caught with their phones just to be released from having to respond to so many people at once. It is the same situation outside of school: I always see kids in places where they should be interacting—having gone out together as a group—only to have conversations while their eyes are glued to the screen. Even my friends and I have been guilty of this once or twice. However, no one is addicted to messages, calling, or texting, because these force you to have actual conversations.
Because of this, these methods of communication should be retained. This will keep the learning environment, while also acknowledging the benefits of having some form of communication.
What I propose is a ban on social media for kids under 15 years of age, without any connection to whether they are in school or not. This would stop the schools from being villainized, allow people to learn to make their own decisions, and destroy the negative effects social media has on developing brains. In schools, texting, phone calls, and other non-social-media applications will be allowed (outside of classes, of course), letting students make use of modern communication’s convenience, have a chance to relax their minds during a long day, and allow parents peace of mind in being able to communicate with their children.
An implementation of this would be simpler than you would think, as no adult would support keeping children on social media besides people in social media companies. Children would also most likely not support this, but kids aren’t in the government. Therefore, a bill being passed would be nearly as frictionless as Kathy Hochul’s recent proposal. Afterwards, it would be up to cell phone companies to tighten restrictions on people lying about their age, and then remove social media apps from their app stores, enforced by fines.
In conclusion, while a cell phone ban in schools is based on correct principles, it is an ineffective solution to the real problem—social media. This is because a cellphone ban would villainize schools, negate some of the benefits that phones can provide, and limit people from learning the downsides of phone use before entering the real world. Rather than this, we should impose a more strict ban on social media apps, keeping the benefits of a cell phone ban while getting rid of the downsides.
If you are a kid, I need you to consider your relationship with social media and try to make a change. If you are an adult, I need you to support lawmakers proposing restrictions on social media. If you are an administrator, teacher, or educational worker, I need you to bring forth this solution into discussion. Discussion is the beginning of change.
Page updated
Report abuse