Skyrocketing drug prices leave cures out of reach for some patients

[Toddsterpatriot]

So......how much money does it take to go from " Wow...we need a drug for this disease" to actually having the pill for the disease......tell us that Socialist.........it aint cheap....and it takes a lot of time in person's life.......to actually create the pill....sure, the Canadians, and the other socialist countries can manufacture pills for pennies....but actually creating that first pill that will cure or alleviate the disease....cost hundreds of millions....and so many hours of a researchers life.....

and you bitch about them making money to do it.....so, you chain them to their work station and force them to create the pill...right? What are the odds those miracle pills will be made?

I think about people when they are sick, or when they have a sick child they want cured....they sit there, and pray, (the atheists sit there in silence) and think...I would give all I have in the world to cure my child of this disease.......

And then the child is cured and then should they say..."Hey Doc.....thanks for saving the life of my child....or hey, thanks Pharma company for making that miracle pill....but.....why are you driving that nice car and living in that nice house.....?"

I have no problem with people making money to make these cures....and almost all companies have "compassionate" use programs for people who need their medicine....and you know what Socialist....why don't you get off your ass and open up your wallet....go to the local hospital and give all of your disposable income to the needy.........but no...you just want to take it from the people actually creating the cures.....

How big of you....

Latest advances in medical research thread Page 22 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is it possible the socialist Cuba, in concert with certain Latin American countries, might save millions of American lives by producing cheaper drugs? If the above link is correct, that possibility has arrived and could be the reason that President Obama is making overtures towards Cuba. We've seen in North America that greed kills. If that kind of capitalistic indifference can be so callously dispensed why not reach out to the affordable life saving MEDICINES offered by socialists. Cuba, can become the democrat's stick behind the door to keep drug prices lower and to save the PPACA.

Is it possible the socialist Cuba, in concert with certain Latin American countries, might save millions of American lives by producing cheaper drugs?

No.

We've seen in North America that greed kills

Based on all the life saving drugs created by Cuba? LOL! Moron.

You are coming in broken up, can't read you! Too much brain static in your cranium!

Maybe Cuba has a drug that can clarify your thinking? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

drugs typically cost more in the US than anywhere else in the world. That's because drug companies pass off their costs only to US citizens and not others. If they passed their costs off to everyone equally than drugs would be cheaper here. To make that happen we need to make it legal to buy drugs cross border line via the internet or mail order tariff free.

drugs typically cost more in the US than anywhere else in the world.

That's because the foreign governments basically steal the drugs.

To make that happen we need to make it legal to buy drugs cross border line

Best way to end new drug development.

 

[paulitician]

One day people will get it. There's only short-term profit in curing illness. But there's massive permanent profit in treating illness. So curing illness is not the agenda. The Pharmaceutical Industry is not your friend.

 

[Dragonlady]

People without insurance, especially poor people without insurance, put off going to the doctor for as long as possible, often going only when they become too sick to continue to ignore the problem.

Most serious illnesses respond better to early treatment. Cancer in particular, has much better survival rates if caught and treated early.

The uninsured often don't have regular check ups or annual physicals, so again things aren't caught early.

Lack of insurance causes 45,000 Americans to die prematurely each year.

It's not true. People WITH insurance put off going to the doctor too.

Further, preventative care is better here in the US, than it is in other countries with so-called free health care.

And yes, you have a better chance of surviving if you catch cancer early. Guess what.... cancer survival rates are higher here in the US, than anywhere else in the world. Cancer survival rates do not exclude people who don't have insurance. It includes everyone. And we STILL have the highest survival rates in the world.

Then why do people in other countries live longer on average, than Americans? Canadians with their so-called "inferior" health care, live more than 3 years longer than Americans. Our diets and lifestyles are similar. The difference is universal health care.

And our cancer survival rates are almost identical to yours, but our heart attack survival rates are substantially better.

Canada is 8th in the world in longevity. The U.S. Is 34th.

The ONLY area where the U.S. health care system is #1 is cost.

 

[Slyhunter]

People without insurance, especially poor people without insurance, put off going to the doctor for as long as possible, often going only when they become too sick to continue to ignore the problem.

Most serious illnesses respond better to early treatment. Cancer in particular, has much better survival rates if caught and treated early.

The uninsured often don't have regular check ups or annual physicals, so again things aren't caught early.

Lack of insurance causes 45,000 Americans to die prematurely each year.

It's not true. People WITH insurance put off going to the doctor too.

Further, preventative care is better here in the US, than it is in other countries with so-called free health care.

And yes, you have a better chance of surviving if you catch cancer early. Guess what.... cancer survival rates are higher here in the US, than anywhere else in the world. Cancer survival rates do not exclude people who don't have insurance. It includes everyone. And we STILL have the highest survival rates in the world.

Then why do people in other countries live longer on average, than Americans? Canadians with their so-called "inferior" health care, live more than 3 years longer than Americans. Our diets and lifestyles are similar. The difference is universal health care.

And our cancer survival rates are almost identical to yours, but our heart attack survival rates are substantially better.

Canada is 8th in the world in longevity. The U.S. Is 34th.

The ONLY area where the U.S. health care system is #1 is cost.

cheaper drugs.

 

[whitehall]

I thought the ironically named ACA solved that problem. Is it possible that federal dollars for research universities and federal grants for cancer research actually results in higher rather than lower prices for sophisticated drugs?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

People without insurance, especially poor people without insurance, put off going to the doctor for as long as possible, often going only when they become too sick to continue to ignore the problem.

Most serious illnesses respond better to early treatment. Cancer in particular, has much better survival rates if caught and treated early.

The uninsured often don't have regular check ups or annual physicals, so again things aren't caught early.

Lack of insurance causes 45,000 Americans to die prematurely each year.

It's not true. People WITH insurance put off going to the doctor too.

Further, preventative care is better here in the US, than it is in other countries with so-called free health care.

And yes, you have a better chance of surviving if you catch cancer early. Guess what.... cancer survival rates are higher here in the US, than anywhere else in the world. Cancer survival rates do not exclude people who don't have insurance. It includes everyone. And we STILL have the highest survival rates in the world.

Then why do people in other countries live longer on average, than Americans? Canadians with their so-called "inferior" health care, live more than 3 years longer than Americans. Our diets and lifestyles are similar. The difference is universal health care.

And our cancer survival rates are almost identical to yours, but our heart attack survival rates are substantially better.

Canada is 8th in the world in longevity. The U.S. Is 34th.

The ONLY area where the U.S. health care system is #1 is cost.

Typical liberal, takes a statistic and applies to it whatever needs shoring up.
No, it does not have to do with universal health care, it has to do with the demographics of the populations of both countries.
and expect our overall number to go down as more and more of the illegals cross the border.
the problem in the U.S is that our liberal government allows anyone to enter regardless of their health.
If the health care has been so bad in the U.S, please give a reasonable explanation why so many from countries with universal health care have been coming here for treatment.

 

[Flipper]

Disgusting..

Sophisticated drugs are opening the door, scientists say, to an era of "precision medicine."

They're also ushering in an age of astronomical prices.

New cancer drugs are routinely priced at more than $100,000 a year — nearly twice the average household income.

Experimental cholesterol drugs — widely predicted to be approved this summer — could cost $10,000 a year

A drug for a subset of people of cystic fibrosis, a lung disease that kills most patients by their early 40s, commands more than $300,000 a year.

Even with insurance, patients might pay thousands of dollars a month out of pocket.

For many people, care for cancer and other serious diseases is "a doorway to bankruptcy or poverty," said Timothy Turnham, executive director of the Melanoma Research Foundation. "It's a tremendous economic burden."

But patients aren't the only ones paying.

Taxpayers underwrite the cost of prescription drugs provided by Medicare, Medicaid and other public insurance programs.

Spending on prescription drugs last year reached a record-breaking $374 billion, up 13% from 2013, with the largest percentage increase in more than a decade, said Clare Krusing,spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans. Almost half of that increase came from drugs launched in the past two years.

Continued here: Skyrocketing drug prices leave cures out of reach for some patients

You should not have supported Obamacare..

Fuck obamacare, why do you assume I support a system that goes through private sectors? I want universal healthcare.

Who cares what you support asswipe?

Fact, the moment anyone hits 6350 out of pocket everything else is paid for making your OP stupid on it's face.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

s

People without insurance, especially poor people without insurance, put off going to the doctor for as long as possible, often going only when they become too sick to continue to ignore the problem.

Most serious illnesses respond better to early treatment. Cancer in particular, has much better survival rates if caught and treated early.

The uninsured often don't have regular check ups or annual physicals, so again things aren't caught early.

Lack of insurance causes 45,000 Americans to die prematurely each year.

It's not true. People WITH insurance put off going to the doctor too.

Further, preventative care is better here in the US, than it is in other countries with so-called free health care.

And yes, you have a better chance of surviving if you catch cancer early. Guess what.... cancer survival rates are higher here in the US, than anywhere else in the world. Cancer survival rates do not exclude people who don't have insurance. It includes everyone. And we STILL have the highest survival rates in the world.

Then why do people in other countries live longer on average, than Americans? Canadians with their so-called "inferior" health care, live more than 3 years longer than Americans. Our diets and lifestyles are similar. The difference is universal health care.

And our cancer survival rates are almost identical to yours, but our heart attack survival rates are substantially better.

Canada is 8th in the world in longevity. The U.S. Is 34th.

The ONLY area where the U.S. health care system is #1 is cost.

Then why do people in other countries live longer on average, than Americans?

America has more minorities who die younger, on average, than most Americans, bringing down our average.

Our diets and lifestyles are similar.

Similar to white Americans? Or black Americans?

 

[Flipper]

drugs typically cost more in the US than anywhere else in the world. That's because drug companies pass off their costs only to US citizens and not others. If they passed their costs off to everyone equally than drugs would be cheaper here. To make that happen we need to make it legal to buy drugs cross border line via the internet or mail order tariff free.

drugs typically cost more in the US than anywhere else in the world.

That's because the foreign governments basically steal the drugs.

To make that happen we need to make it legal to buy drugs cross border line

Best way to end new drug development.

Our FDA charges the Drug Manufacturers MILLIONS to get the drugs approved.

 

[boilermaker55]

September 9, 2002
From Inception to Ingestion:The Cost of Creating New Drugs
by Merrill Matthews | Publications | IPI Ideas
PDF

The pharmaceutical industry cites studies that suggest it costs more than $800 million to move a new drug through the 10-to-12 year discovery, development and approval process. However, critics claim those estimates are artificially inflated and that the actual costs are much lower. For example, Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen released a study last year claiming that the cost of creating a new drug is only about $110 million (in 2000 dollars). And that includes the cost of failures.

Is there a way to resolve this discrepancy? Yes, by looking at aggregate research and development spending and the number of drugs finally approved.

The Drug Creation Process. The pharmaceutical industry is a high-technology — “pharmatech” — industry that pours billions of dollars annually into new, innovative drugs. But new drugs face numerous hurdles as they move from inception to ingestion — and those hurdles drive up the costs.

Scientists must first identify a chemical compound they think will help a medical condition. They then apply for a patent, which can take a couple of years before being issued. Researchers then must find a deliverable form of the drug and, in most cases, test it in animals.

If animal tests appear promising, the drug will begin moving through the human testing process, a series of three or four clinical trials that may test the drug on thousands of patients at various medical centers throughout the country, and sometimes internationally.

These trials can take six to eight years and thousands of medical personnel. There are numerous opportunities for failure. Often it isn’t until the end of the clinical trials that enough patients are involved to determine if a drug’s active ingredient is effective and if the side effects are acceptable. And the patent clock is running all the while, despite the fact that the drug isn’t yet on the market.

If patients are not responding as researchers had predicted, scientists may be able to adjust the formula, but they sometimes have to scrap the project and start over again, losing both time and the money invested.

If the drug makes it through the clinical trials and demonstrates to researchers that it is more effective than placebo (an inactive substance), the manufacturer sends the thousands of pages documenting the research to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval — a process that can also take more than two years (though there are ways to expedite it).

According to a 2001 study by economist Joseph DiMasi of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University, for every 5,000 drugs that appear promising enough to be tested in animals, only five make it to human clinical trials and only one will actually be approved.

Case Study: A “Youth Pill.” The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Pfizer spent $71 million researching a “youth pill” intended to stimulate the pituitary gland in hopes of reversing “the physical decline that comes with aging.” Early tests on animals seemed very positive, but human trials were not as successful. Pfizer eventually and reluctantly discontinued its research. However, those costs can only be recovered through other drugs that successfully make it through the approval process.

How Much Does It Cost to Create a New Drug? Determining how much it costs to produce a new drug isn’t an easy task. Some new drugs are tested on thousands of patients. Others target diseases that afflict relatively few people. Some may go through multiple variations in either animal or human tests before the scientists get the right formula.

Moreover, the cost of a drug that actually reaches the market must incorporate the cost of those that failed — just as the price of products for sale in retail stores must reflect the cost of damaged, lost and stolen goods.

In 1991, DiMasi et al. published a paper in the Journal of Health Economics estimating that it cost about $231 million (in 1987 dollars) to take a new drug from creation to approval, including the cost of other drug failures and the interest lost had the money been invested rather than used for experiments. A few years later, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) extrapolated the DiMasi study and concluded that it cost about $500 million to get a new drug to market.

BCG recently updated that figure. The firm interviewed about 60 scientists and executives from nearly 50 companies and academic institutions and concluded that it takes about $880 million and 15 years to get a single drug to market. And according to BCG’s report, 75 percent of that cost is drug failures.

The DiMasi study produced for the Tufts Center and released last year also weighed in with a new estimate: the average drug takes about 12 years to move through the approval process and costs $802 million per approved drug.

Another Way to Estimate Costs. Another way to estimate the cost of creating a new drug is to look at total research and development costs — a number that has been tracked for years— and divide that amount by the number of new drugs approved each year, thus yielding the average cost of a new, approved drug. For example, the research-based pharmaceutical companies spent about $26 billion on R&D in 2000, and 27 drugs were approved. Thus, it cost approximately $964 million per drug approved in 2000. [See the figure.]

The other side of your little delusion you hate to acknowledge.

Up to 70 percent of Americans are addicted to prescription drugs and pay $280 billion a year in the process. The big drug companies make more money than you ever dreamed possible by turning the American people into the most doped up people in the history of the planet. In America today, the number of people hooked on legal drugs absolutely dwarfs the number of people hooked on illegal drugs. This is particularly true when it comes to antidepressants and painkillers. I know so many people using them. They have told me that they are addicted and they don’t know what to do to stop.

Sadly, the number of people killed by legal drugs absolutely dwarfs the number of people killed by illegal drugs. Most Americans assume that if a drug is “legal” that it must be safe. However, I am not including you, my readers, in this category. Many of you have been reading my newsletters and emails and books and CD’s for decades. You already know the truth!

Most people believe that the big pharmaceutical companies and the federal government would never allow us to take anything that would hurt us, right? Sadly, the truth is that they do not really care about us. In fact, they have a fiduciary responsibility to sell us as many drugs as possible to make the highest profits. They do not really care that prescription painkillers are some of the most addictive drugs on the entire planet and that they kill more Americans each year than heroin and cocaine combined. They do not care that antidepressants are turning tens of millions of Americans into zombies and can significantly increase the chance of suicide. All the big pharmaceutical companies really care about is making as much money as they possibly can.

Here are 20 things you need to know about prescription drugs, along with my commentary:

1. According to a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug. An astounding 20 percent of all Americans are on at least five prescription drugs. I know folks that are on over a dozen. Most of them walk around in a zombie state.

When you combine the drugs with the fluoride it is no wonder most Americans don’t know what is going on in the world scene. They are content to sit in front of the idiot box for six hours a day in an alpha brain wave state, drooling on themselves while watching sports shows and drinking beer!

And do you know everything that pharmaceuticals do to enhance the cost of their drugs. You know through legislation. How they use the system go gain favor. Mostly economically. But you forget that soooooo conveniently don't you

And naturally people blame the healthcare. What about the price gouging from the pharmaceuticals?
Stupid people.

Perhaps you will answer the question.

From diagnosis to drug....do you know everything that is involved in the creation of these drugs, and their costs?

I do....so, answer My question. How much does it cost from inception to market? Do you know?

 

[Andylusion]

So......how much money does it take to go from " Wow...we need a drug for this disease" to actually having the pill for the disease......tell us that Socialist.........it aint cheap....and it takes a lot of time in person's life.......to actually create the pill....sure, the Canadians, and the other socialist countries can manufacture pills for pennies....but actually creating that first pill that will cure or alleviate the disease....cost hundreds of millions....and so many hours of a researchers life.....

and you bitch about them making money to do it.....so, you chain them to their work station and force them to create the pill...right? What are the odds those miracle pills will be made?

I think about people when they are sick, or when they have a sick child they want cured....they sit there, and pray, (the atheists sit there in silence) and think...I would give all I have in the world to cure my child of this disease.......

And then the child is cured and then should they say..."Hey Doc.....thanks for saving the life of my child....or hey, thanks Pharma company for making that miracle pill....but.....why are you driving that nice car and living in that nice house.....?"

I have no problem with people making money to make these cures....and almost all companies have "compassionate" use programs for people who need their medicine....and you know what Socialist....why don't you get off your ass and open up your wallet....go to the local hospital and give all of your disposable income to the needy.........but no...you just want to take it from the people actually creating the cures.....

How big of you....

Latest advances in medical research thread Page 22 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is it possible the socialist Cuba, in concert with certain Latin American countries, might save millions of American lives by producing cheaper drugs? If the above link is correct, that possibility has arrived and could be the reason that President Obama is making overtures towards Cuba. We've seen in North America that greed kills. If that kind of capitalistic indifference can be so callously dispensed why not reach out to the affordable life saving MEDICINES offered by socialists. Cuba, can become the democrat's stick behind the door to keep drug prices lower and to save the PPACA.

To answer your question........ Of course they could.

China right now, is subsidizing steal production. Much of which, is sold to the US. Now think about that.... The chinese people are paying taxes.... which is used to sell US cheap steal. We benefit, from them paying tons of taxes. We get richer.... they get poor from that.

Cuba is taxing the average Cuban which is horribly poor... so that we can have a great drug. Wonderful, isn't it?

Socialism benefits the rich (that's us), at the expense of the poor (that's the poor people of those countries paying taxes so we have cheap goods).

That said, even the system for getting us those drugs isn't socialism. The method of development is.... that's true. They taxed the poor people of Cuba, to pay rich people in government to run the research and development program.

But read the home page of the Cuban Center of Molecular Immunology, the program which created this drug.
From their home page.
CIMAB S.A.

Desde el año 1992 CIMAB S.A. se dedica a la comercialización de productos Biofarmacéuticos en el mercado nacional e internacional, en especial anticuerpos monoclonales y otras proteínas recombinantes, para el diagnóstico y el tratamiento del cáncer y otras enfermedades relacionadas con el Sistema Inmune.

Can't read Spanish?

Since 1992 CIMAB S.A. It is dedicated to the commercialization of Biopharmaceutical products in the domestic and international market, especially monoclonal antibodies and other recombinant proteins for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other immune- related diseases.

You see it? Commercialization. Need a definition of "commercialization"? 'to manage on a business basis for profit' or 'to exploit for profit'.

Now I don't know what definition of Socialism and Capitalism you subscribe to... but there is nothing socialist, and everything capitalist about that.

The average Cuban citizen under socialism, couldn't even get Aspirin. And you want to suggest that Cuban socialism is going to save us? No. Not at all.

 

[waltky]

The Donald goin' after pharmaceuticals...

Trump pushes drugmakers for lower prices, more U.S. production
Jan 31 2017 - U.S. President Donald Trump in a meeting on Tuesday with pharmaceutical executives called on them to manufacture more of their drugs in the United States and cut prices, while vowing to speed approval of new medicines and ease regulation.

Trump told them the government was paying "astronomical" prices for medicines in its health programs for older, disabled and poor people and said he would soon appoint a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration leader. "We’re going to streamline the FDA," Trump said in a statement, referring to the regulatory agency responsible for vetting that new drugs are safe and effective. The meeting between Trump and the pharmaceutical executives signaled a defusing of tensions that have kept drug stock prices in check since the presidential election. Shares of most of the group rallied on Tuesday following the meeting, even as the broader stock market slid. “Trump is a populist above all else, and having these (drug) prices skyrocket, he’s commented that under his administration, this is not going to happen,” said market strategist Quincy Crosby of Prudential Financial in Newark, New Jersey.

She said Trump was playing a balancing act between controlling prices and loosening regulations. "I don’t think the majority of Americans want all regulations lifted from drug makers.” Attending the meeting were top executives at Merck & Co Inc, Johnson &, Celgene Corp, Eli Lilly & Co, Amgen Inc and Switzerland's Novartis AG <NOV N.S> as well as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobbying group. According to a transcript of the televised portion of the meeting, Amgen Chief Executive Officer Robert Brad way promised to add 1,600 U.S. jobs at his California-based biotechnology company this year. Amgen clarified in an email that it currently employs around 20,000 people worldwide, including 12,000 in the United States, and said the 1,600 includes new staff as well as hires to address attrition.

U.S. President Donald Trump talks with Kenneth Frazier (L) CEO of Merck as Robert Hugin (2nd R) Executive Chairman of Celgene and Robert Bradway (R) CEO of Amgen look on during a meeting with Pharma industry representatives at the White House in Washington​

Celgene, Lilly, Merck and Amgen said by email after the meeting that they were encouraged by Trump's focus on innovation, tax reform and the need for a more value-driven health care system. Lilly said discussion topics also included stronger trade agreements and removing "outdated regulations that drive up costs and slow innovation." PhRMA echoed those points in its own post-meeting statement, adding that the policies, if enacted, would result in up to 350,000 new jobs over the next 10 years. "Tax, deregulation - those are things that could really help us expand operations," Lilly CEO Dave Ricks said. Officials at Novartis and J&J did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment. Shares of the six companies were mostly higher, for an overall gain averaging 0.7 percent, compared with a 0.4 percent drop in the broad S&P 500. The Nasdaq Biotech Index was up 1.2 percent, reversing earlier losses, and the S&P 500 health care index gained 0.6 percent.

WORLD'S HIGHEST DRUG PRICES

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[there4eyeM]

The only right to health care is your right to buy and pay for it.

"Rights" are a human creation and are defined as humans see fit. When it is decided that health care is a right, there is no further argument.

 

[owebo]

Disgusting..

Sophisticated drugs are opening the door, scientists say, to an era of "precision medicine."

They're also ushering in an age of astronomical prices.

New cancer drugs are routinely priced at more than $100,000 a year — nearly twice the average household income.

Experimental cholesterol drugs — widely predicted to be approved this summer — could cost $10,000 a year

A drug for a subset of people of cystic fibrosis, a lung disease that kills most patients by their early 40s, commands more than $300,000 a year.

Even with insurance, patients might pay thousands of dollars a month out of pocket.

For many people, care for cancer and other serious diseases is "a doorway to bankruptcy or poverty," said Timothy Turnham, executive director of the Melanoma Research Foundation. "It's a tremendous economic burden."

But patients aren't the only ones paying.

Taxpayers underwrite the cost of prescription drugs provided by Medicare, Medicaid and other public insurance programs.

Spending on prescription drugs last year reached a record-breaking $374 billion, up 13% from 2013, with the largest percentage increase in more than a decade, said Clare Krusing,spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans. Almost half of that increase came from drugs launched in the past two years.

Continued here: Skyrocketing drug prices leave cures out of reach for some patients

Obamacare...

 

[owebo]

The only right to health care is your right to buy and pay for it.

"Rights" are a human creation and are defined as humans see fit. When it is decided that health care is a right, there is no further argument.

Rights are of humans, not by humans, you confused liberal fascist.....

 

[there4eyeM]

Want some sauce for that salad?

 

[Moonglow]

The Donald goin' after pharmaceuticals...

Trump pushes drugmakers for lower prices, more U.S. production
Jan 31 2017 - U.S. President Donald Trump in a meeting on Tuesday with pharmaceutical executives called on them to manufacture more of their drugs in the United States and cut prices, while vowing to speed approval of new medicines and ease regulation.

Trump told them the government was paying "astronomical" prices for medicines in its health programs for older, disabled and poor people and said he would soon appoint a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration leader. "We’re going to streamline the FDA," Trump said in a statement, referring to the regulatory agency responsible for vetting that new drugs are safe and effective. The meeting between Trump and the pharmaceutical executives signaled a defusing of tensions that have kept drug stock prices in check since the presidential election. Shares of most of the group rallied on Tuesday following the meeting, even as the broader stock market slid. “Trump is a populist above all else, and having these (drug) prices skyrocket, he’s commented that under his administration, this is not going to happen,” said market strategist Quincy Crosby of Prudential Financial in Newark, New Jersey.

She said Trump was playing a balancing act between controlling prices and loosening regulations. "I don’t think the majority of Americans want all regulations lifted from drug makers.” Attending the meeting were top executives at Merck & Co Inc, Johnson &, Celgene Corp, Eli Lilly & Co, Amgen Inc and Switzerland's Novartis AG <NOV N.S> as well as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobbying group. According to a transcript of the televised portion of the meeting, Amgen Chief Executive Officer Robert Brad way promised to add 1,600 U.S. jobs at his California-based biotechnology company this year. Amgen clarified in an email that it currently employs around 20,000 people worldwide, including 12,000 in the United States, and said the 1,600 includes new staff as well as hires to address attrition.

U.S. President Donald Trump talks with Kenneth Frazier (L) CEO of Merck as Robert Hugin (2nd R) Executive Chairman of Celgene and Robert Bradway (R) CEO of Amgen look on during a meeting with Pharma industry representatives at the White House in Washington​

Celgene, Lilly, Merck and Amgen said by email after the meeting that they were encouraged by Trump's focus on innovation, tax reform and the need for a more value-driven health care system. Lilly said discussion topics also included stronger trade agreements and removing "outdated regulations that drive up costs and slow innovation." PhRMA echoed those points in its own post-meeting statement, adding that the policies, if enacted, would result in up to 350,000 new jobs over the next 10 years. "Tax, deregulation - those are things that could really help us expand operations," Lilly CEO Dave Ricks said. Officials at Novartis and J&J did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment. Shares of the six companies were mostly higher, for an overall gain averaging 0.7 percent, compared with a 0.4 percent drop in the broad S&P 500. The Nasdaq Biotech Index was up 1.2 percent, reversing earlier losses, and the S&P 500 health care index gained 0.6 percent.

WORLD'S HIGHEST DRUG PRICES

Today in Obamacare: Trump quickly changed his mind on drug prices. Expect the same on Obamacare.