Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Dark magic: Drug companies and the art of deception

Dark magic: Drug companies and the art of deception
Getty Images

Pearl is a clinical professor of plastic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Magicians know the key to a convincing trick is misdirection.


They instruct you to follow the left hand so that you’ll ignore the right, which is subtly palming a ball or pulling an ace from the sleeve. The art of the illusion hinges on the magician’s ability to divert attention from where the real action is happening. And, therefore, every illusion conceals the truth.

Similarly, the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry has relied on subtle forms of misdirection in response to increased scrutiny from Congress, the Biden administration and health policy experts.

Here are three illusions drug companies have crafted to maintain massive profitability:

Illusion No. 1: A Death-Defying Feat

Drug research and development (R&D) has, for decades, gifted humanity with medical wonders: antibiotics, statins, cancer therapies and HIV/AIDS treatments.

In the 21st century, however, drug innovation has slowed while pharma companies have made exorbitant pricing a key business strategy. Over the past 18 years, biopharma companies have earned an average gross profit margin of 77%. Last year, the five largest pharma firms generated more than $81.9 billion in profits.

To combat runaway drug prices, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act last year, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate prices for a limited number of expensive medications starting in 2026.

The pharmaceutical sector immediately filed lawsuits. In public remarks, drug spokespeople have created the illusion that any reduction in drug-industry profits will destroy R&D innovation and harm millions of patients.

The Hidden Truth

Hidden in this illusion are three facts drug companies don’t want Americans to know. Combined, these truths tell a different story about pharmaceutical research and development.

First, an overwhelming percentage of drug prices gets channeled into corporate profits and administrative costs, not R&D. In fact, a report during the height of the pandemic found that 7 in 10 major drug companies spent more on marketing and sales than R&D.

Second, research concludes that price constraints would minimally impact drug discovery. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the pharmaceutical revenues would result in just one less drug over the next decade and a total of 1% fewer medications over the next 30 years.

The third and most pernicious part of the illusion is getting people to ignore how many Americans are harmed by the unaffordability of life-essential medications. One example is insulin prices, which have tripled over the past decade. As a result, researchers from Yale found 25% of children with type 1 diabetes are given lower doses by their parents than their physicians recommend.

Nearly 1 in 4 Americans on prescription drugs now report difficulty affording their medications. That is the hidden truth. Exorbitant Rx prices hurt and kill far more Americans than the supposed loss of R&D ever would.

Illusion No. 2: The Statue Of Liberty Trick

Once Americans buy into the illusion that exorbitant drug prices are necessary to save lives, pharmaceutical companies move on to the next sleight of hand.

It goes like this: The United States, alone, must shoulder the enormous burden of drug prices.

Right now, Americans pay 2.4 to 3.4 times more for medications than in peer nations.

Much of the disparity in spending dates back to 2003 when Congress passed a law prohibiting the U.S. government from negotiating drug prices. And without any pricing regulations in place, domestic drug companies have pushed the boundaries ever higher. Over the past two years, nearly half of FDA approved medications have debuted above $150,000 with several topping $1 million per patient.

Outside of the United States, excessively high drug prices are a rarity.

Ozempic exemplifies the problem. This diabetes drug helps people lose significant weight while also avoiding heart attacks. A month’s supply of it costs $936 in the United States. In Japan, it sells for $169. It’s just $93 in the UK, $87 in Australia and $83 France.

Each of these countries has instituted drug-pricing controls and caps on drugmaker profits. If our nation adopted the same regulations, we could prescribe Ozempic to every overweight and obese American, and affordably solve the obesity epidemic. But under current retail pricing, doing so would increase drug spending $1.5 trillion per year, raising overall healthcare costs by 25%.

The Hidden Truth

The illusion here is that drug prices in other wealthy nations are non-negotiable.

But of course, that’s not accurate. American drug companies could play hardball with peer countries, refusing to sell their medications unless a more equitable pricing structure can be reached.

But why bother when you can simply stick Americans with the bill?

Illusion No. 3: What’s In Your Pocket?

When it comes to purchasing prescription drugs, there are two prices. There’s the very high retail price drug companies charge and the much-smaller amount insured patients pay when they pick up their medications (the out-of-pocket expense).

Since out-of-pockets are only small fraction of the total drug expense, drug companies would like Americans to concentrate on those dollars. But that requires people to assume the rest of the money—paid by the government or private businesses—is free.

The Hidden Truth

The reality is that workers and taxpayers wind up paying the price for expensive medications in two ways:

1. Workers earn less pay as benefit costs increase. That’s because employers treat wages and healthcare benefits as a single expense. As medical costs soar, raises disappear and salaries stagnate.

2. Taxpayers either pay more or get less. When medical costs rise, the government must either raise taxes or cut programs, including school funding and public safety.

Deception and misdirection can be sources of wonder at magic shows. But illusions in healthcare prove to be disturbing, dangerous and deadly.


Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less