Doctor exposes shocking disparity in medicine costs between the US and Australia
Doctor Michael broke down the price discrepancies between five common medications in the United States, Australia and Scotland to his more than 500,000 followers on TikTok.
Watched more than 2.7 million times, he started the video on a salbutamol inhaler, a puffer for asthma sufferers, costing about A$10, while it is US$50 in the states.
A doctor has revealed the shock costs of five common medicines in the US, Australia and Scotland.
One medication will set back Americans up to $84,500.
4 A doctor has revealed the shock costs of five common medicines in the US, Australia and Scotland.
Nikish H/peopleimages.com – stock.adobe.com
Atorvastatin, a medication to lower cholesterol and prevent cardiovascular disease, is priced as little as A$6.70 for 30 tablets in Australia, compared to US$2,628 for Americans.
Next was Omeprazole, used for treating stomach acid, heartburn and reflux, costs A$6 in Australia and up to US $326 in the US.
While Azithromycin, an antibiotic to treat bacterial infections, can set Americans back US$155, while many Aussies pay just A$7.70.
However, the biggest shock was Sofosbuvir, which treats hepatitis C, with a 12-week treatment roughly costing an eyewatering US$84,000 without insurance and discounts.
It equates to about US$1,000 a tablet, multiple US health websites reported.
Meanwhile, it costs about $31 for a packet of 28 in Australia on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
Americans are facing much higher costs.
There are no costs involved for all five medications mentioned in Scotland, Dr Michael said.
'Oh my god,' he said in reaction to the five-figure cost.
'See, in Scotland and Australia there's a socialist healthcare system which means that the government subsidises the cost of medications.'
Commenters from around the world were left shocked.
'Aussie here, happy to pay extra tax to know that everyone can get medical care. It's a human right ffs,' one person said.
'America is one gigantic scam,' added another.
'People in Australia cry over tax we have to pay,' added a third. 'On the other hand, free hospitals, cheap medicine, cheap doctors, family tax benefit, aged care, unemployment benifits, aged pension, carer payments, meternity leave, farm house allowances, disability support, youth allowance. The list goes on. Australia looks after its citizens.'
The medical practitioner's video came after President Donald Trump threatened a 200 percent tariff on imported drugs, one of Australia's largest exports to the US.
4 The medical practitioner's video came after President Donald Trump threatened a 200 per cent tariff on imported drugs, one of Australia's largest exports to the US.
Tyler Olson – stock.adobe.com
The commander-in-chief this week warned he may hike it a further 50 per cent.
'We'll be putting (an) initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals, but in one year, one-and-a-half years, maximum, it's going to go to 150 per cent,' he said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday.
'And then it's going to go to 250 per cent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country.'
Trump's fresh tariff threat
It is feared President Trump's war on Big Pharma could have monumental consequences in Australia that could see billions wiped from the economy and the PBS caught in the crossfire.
However, The Australian Institute's chief economist, Matt Grudnoff, urged caution and argued the leader of the free world himself was likely unsure of what he is going to do on pharmaceutical tariffs 'yet'.
'Some of the numbers he throws around, we know that even after well over six months now of talk about tariffs, he really hasn't nailed down exactly what they're going to be anywhere. This is something that I think will be off in the future,' Mr Grundoff told news.com.au.
US President Donald Trump has threatened to slap 250 per cent tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals, a $2.2 billion export of Australia.
He also stressed American consumers will be hit harder than Australians if any tariffs were to be applied, but Mr Grudnoff said the timing of it could be around the US midterms.
'If Trump imposes tariffs that increase the price of medicines in the US right before the midterm elections… I can't see that happening for political reasons if nothing else,' he said.
'I think that Republicans facing re-election will be very keen for that not to happen and also Trump has been… talking about decreasing medicine prices and (if) medicine prices go up, that might be quite difficult politically for him.'
4 He also stressed American consumers will be hit harder than Australians if any tariffs were to be applied, but Mr Grudnoff said the timing of it could be around the US midterms.
bukhta79 – stock.adobe.com
He said any levies on pharmaceuticals could have a 'slightly larger impact' compared to other industries and affect some of the largest medicine companies in Australia.
The Albanese government ruled out making changes to the PBS to appease President Trump who has been urged to overhaul the 'discriminatory' scheme that 'undermines' US exports.
Any alteration to the system may drive up prices of medicines in Australia.
'To be very clear, there seems to be very strong bipartisan policy in Australia (on) both sides that no, they're not going to use the PBS as a bargaining tool,' Mr Grudnoff said.
'There has been no indication yet that the Australian government would reduce pharmaceutical tariffs for higher US drug prices in Australia. I think they'd be crazy to do it. I don't think our trade with the US in pharmaceutical goods is anywhere near big enough to warrant the pain that would be caused in Australia by higher drug prices.'
Both sides of government have ruled out any changes to the PBS amid President Trump's pharmaceutical tariff threat. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has previously said the PBS is 'not up for negotiation'.
Last week the government introduced legislation to bring down the cap of eligible medicines on the PBS from $31.60 down to $25 from January 1 next year.
Labor said it will save Australians about $200 million a year.
PBS wait times a big concern, peak body warns
The threat of President Trump's tariffs are less of a concern compared to the long wait times for medicines to be put on the PBS, a peak pharmaceutical research industry has said.
Medicines Australia chief Liz de Somer warned Australians could die waiting for new life-saving medicines to be listed on the scheme
Patients and advocacy groups say the complex process and excessive red tape involved is leading to unnecessary and long delays.
4 Patients and advocacy groups say the complex process and excessive red tape involved is leading to unnecessary and long delays.
Tiktok/@drmichaelsays
A report this week found the average wait time from when a medication is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to being listed is 22 months.
It would see drugs costing hundreds to thousands of dollars drop to just over $30.
'Patients will die waiting for medicines to be listed,' Ms de Somer said.
'And this will have a far greater effect on the Australian system than anything else.'
A review of the PBS system was completed by the Health Technology Assessment and handed to the federal government last year, making a series of recommendations to improve speed.
Health Minister Mark Butler has said the review will help guide the Albanese government on future decisions on reform.
'The Albanese government is continuing to make medicines available to Australian patients faster and cheaper,' he said.
'We know patients want faster access to cutting-edge medicine and treatments.
'That's why our government is working through the recommendations of the HTA review, so Australians can get faster access to the best medicines and therapies, at a cost that patients and the community can afford.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Cutting federal funds for mRNA vaccine leaves the US vulnerable, experts say
This week, President Donald Trump called Operation Warp Speed, a public-private federal program that helped speed up the development and distribution of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in record time 'one of the most incredible things ever done in this country.' It was just a day after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the federal government was canceling a half-billion dollars in investments into the same technology, saying no new mRNA projects will be initiated under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Vaccine and preparedness experts said the decision could be disastrous for the United States, rendering another Operation Warp Speed impossible in case of threat from disease or bioweapons. Kennedy, who has a long history of spreading vaccine misinformation, incorrectly suggested in his announcement that mRNA vaccine technology is ineffective, unsafe and unethical — comments that experts worry will put a chill on development even beyond the projects the government cut. Dr. Paul Offit joins The Lead In a statement about the cancellation, Kennedy said the decision was based on a review of science and expert opinions. 'Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them,' Kennedy said in this week's announcement. 'That's why we're moving beyond the limitations of mRNA and investing in better solutions.' Kennedy said funding will be shifted 'toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate,' such as whole virus vaccines, which use a weakened or deactivated version of a virus to trigger immunity. China developed a whole virus Covid-19 vaccine, but studies showed it wasn't nearly as effective as the mRNA vaccines. 'I wonder why we want to try and go back to the way it was in the 1940s when we had vaccines, but it took a really long time to make them,' Dr. Cynthia Leifer, a professor of immunology at Cornell University said. She equates the abandonment of mRNA research at this point to partially paying for a kitchen remodel and stopping to save money after the walls have been demolished. 'You'd be out your money and you don't have a kitchen,' Leifer said. The mRNA vaccine platform is uniquely suited to protect a country during a pandemic, said Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health. Not knowing what will cause the next pandemic, she said, 'mRNA vaccines offer real flexibility that other vaccine approaches don't.' For a flu vaccine, for example, makers use eggs to grow the virus. It's a complicated process that may require several months to make enough, Nuzzo said. But mRNA vaccines can be developed much faster, sometimes even in days, and don't require time to grow virus cultures. When making an mRNA vaccine, scientists take messenger RNA, a single strand of the genetic code, that can teach cells how 'read' and make a protein that triggers an immune response. Dr. Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota epidemiologist, said the decision to 'wind down' the government's investment in mRNA vaccines is one of the worst public health decisions in decades, particularly for pandemic preparedness. Osterholm, who is the founding director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and author of the forthcoming book 'The Big One: How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics,' said vaccines are a 'very, very small part of the pharmaceutical industry's portfolio' since there's not a lot of profit in vaccines. It's government money that drives companies to make them. Some mRNA projects are funded through other parts of the government, but Kennedy's announcement may undermine mRNA vaccines in general. 'The constant undercutting of support for vaccines is really a challenge. So the damage was twofold,' Osterholm said. 'If we had another pandemic today, we would have to watch large parts of the world not get vaccinated for several years and based on what's just happened, the United States would probably be at the end of the line, not the head of the line like it was in Covid.' Nuzzo said it's possible another pandemic may not happen during Trump's term, but the decision leaves the US vulnerable in another way: Retreat from investment in mRNA vaccines may even be seen as an opening for an attack. 'Defense posturing and defense preparation are the best form of deterrence for a biological attack,' she said.'It sends a bad signal to our adversaries about our commitments to protecting ourselves and our vulnerabilities to attack, let alone it stifles medical innovation.' Leaders in the Trump administration have pushed to bring drug manufacturing to the United States but experts say the choice to stop investing in mRNA vaccines will do the opposite. Dr. Katalin Karikó, who shared the Nobel prize in 2023 for her pioneering work on the mRNA vaccines, told CNN this week that she moved to the US from Hungary because America offered opportunities to develop innovative science. US scientists in the same position today will not see the same opportunities, she said, and they'll go where there's investment in their work. 'It is really the next generation that will suffer the most,' Karikó told CNN, Wednesday. 'When we have the next pandemic other countries will have to help us out.' CNNI's Christina MacFarlane and CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Here are good and bad ultraprocessed foods, according to the American Heart Association
Step aside, MAHA. The country's largest heart-health organization has just released its long-awaited guidelines for the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs. The new scientific advisory statement from the American Heart Association comes just days before the arrival of the second 'Make America Healthy Again' or MAHA Commission report, spearheaded by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The first MAHA report, released in May, described how ultraprocessed foods were contributing to chronic illnesses in children. The second installment, due by Tuesday, is expected to lay out proposed policy changes. The American Heart Association's key message is not surprising: Most ultraprocessed foods are terrible for health, including heart health, and it is high time the food industry stopped producing them and regulators stopped letting them, the nonprofit says. But surprisingly, the AHA also dives nose first into the hotly debated question: Are all ultraprocessed foods unhealthy? Maybe not, according to the new guidelines released Friday in the journal Circulation. In reality, however, it's just a few categories, like 'certain whole grain breads, low-sugar yogurts, tomato sauces, and nut or bean-based spreads,' the report states. Even those 'healthy' options, the report adds, should be monitored to ensure they remain that way. That's no reason to celebrate, says Christopher Gardner, who is vice chair of the AHA report's writing group. 'Let's not give the industry a write-off just because there's a few things that are a bit healthier than the vast majority of ultraprocessed foods full of sugar, salt and fat,' he said. 'We have tons of evidence that too much salt, sugar and fat are harmful — we've known that since the days of junk food,' said Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'But today's junk food is ultraprocessed with cosmetic additives that lead to overeating and tons of health issues,' he added. 'That's the problem. Can we please double down on those?' Guidance from the AHA is highly regarded by medical professionals and policy makers, and experts say tackling the issue of ultraprocessed food couldn't come at a better time. New data released Thursday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found Americans over the age of 1 get 55% of their daily calories from ultraprocessed food. That number jumped to 62% for children between 1 and 18 years old. That's concerning, the AHA report said, because research has found a dose-response relationship between ultraprocessed foods and heart attacks and stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity and all-cause mortality. Just one extra serving a day of ultraprocessed food led to some 50% higher risk of cardiovascular disease-related death, according to a February 2024 review of 45 meta-analyses on almost 10 million people. Eating more ultraprocessed foods may also increase the risk of obesity by 55%, sleep disorders by 41%, development of type 2 diabetes by 40% and the risk of depression by 20%, according to the review. To counter these potential health harms, the AHA says Americans should stop eating as many of the most harmful UPFs as possible — especially those high in unhealthy fats, added sugars and salt — while allowing 'a small number of select, affordable UPFs of better diet quality' to be eaten as part of a healthy diet. Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, was disappointed with the guidance. 'The emphasis on 'healthy' UPFs is not helpful for two reasons,' Nestle said in an email. 'The small number of foods in that category (of healthy UPFs), and the recent research demonstrating that even 'healthy' UPFs induce people to eat more calories than they would if they were eating minimally processed foods.' Nestle, who was not involved with the report, is referencing an August 4 study in which people in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy. The research, which was one of the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trials of UPFs to date, tried to create a healthy ultraprocessed diet. Ultraprocessed foods in the study included a recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber as well as lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats. Yet, the study found, whole foods cooked at home still won the day when it came to weight loss. While science attempts to find out just what it is about UPF additives or processing that contributes to such findings, the AHA has provided some basic advice by assigning ultraprocessed foods into one of three categories: least healthy, moderately healthy and healthy. Healthier choices included fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables without added sugar or salt; whole grains such as oats and brown rice; unsalted seeds and nuts; dried beans and legumes; plant oils; low-fat plain milk or yogurt; lean, unprocessed meat; and dairy, unsweetened beverages and water. Plant-based meat and dairy that was low in added sugar, salt and fats were also considered healthy. Moderately healthy foods included white rice and pasta; full fat dairy; freshly made refined grain bread; salted nuts; canned fruits in light syrup; canned beans with salt; hard cheeses; egg replacements; and low sodium, low fat soups. Store-bought meals made with choices from the healthy group above were also in the category. The unhealthy group contained the usual culprits — high fat red meat, pork, processed meats (chicken nuggets, hot dogs, sausage), butter, lard and tropical oils such as coconut. Sour cream and 100% fruit juice made the list, as did sugar, honey, maple syrup, crackers, sweetened dried and canned fruit, tortilla or potato-based chips and French fries. Refined grain breads, rolls and tortillas were included as unhealthy, as were sugar-sweetened beverages (which included energy drinks), liquid cheese products, cookies, crackers, candies, gummy fruit snacks, ice cream, boxed macaroni, instant noodles, pizza, some canned or instant soups and canned fruits in syrup. Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Figs (NYSE:FIGS) Delivers Impressive Q2, Stock Jumps 12%
Healthcare apparel company Figs (NYSE:FIGS) reported Q2 CY2025 results beating Wall Street's revenue expectations , with sales up 5.8% year on year to $152.6 million. Its GAAP profit of $0.04 per share was $0.03 above analysts' consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy Figs? Find out in our full research report. Figs (FIGS) Q2 CY2025 Highlights: Revenue: $152.6 million vs analyst estimates of $144.7 million (5.8% year-on-year growth, 5.5% beat) EPS (GAAP): $0.04 vs analyst estimates of $0.02 ($0.03 beat) Adjusted EBITDA: $19.73 million vs analyst estimates of $12.6 million (12.9% margin, 56.5% beat) Operating Margin: 6.5%, up from 1.1% in the same quarter last year Free Cash Flow was -$13.52 million, down from $7.55 million in the same quarter last year Active customers: 2.74 million Market Capitalization: $1.06 billion Company Overview Rising to fame via TikTok and founded in 2013 by Heather Hasson and Trina Spear, Figs (NYSE:FIGS) is a healthcare apparel company known for its stylish approach to medical attire and uniforms. Revenue Growth Examining a company's long-term performance can provide clues about its quality. Any business can have short-term success, but a top-tier one grows for years. Over the last five years, Figs grew its sales at an incredible 30.3% compounded annual growth rate. Its growth beat the average consumer discretionary company and shows its offerings resonate with customers. Long-term growth is the most important, but within consumer discretionary, product cycles are short and revenue can be hit-driven due to rapidly changing trends and consumer preferences. Figs's recent performance shows its demand has slowed significantly as its annualized revenue growth of 3.5% over the last two years was well below its five-year trend. Figs also discloses its number of active customers, which reached 2.74 million in the latest quarter. Over the last two years, Figs's active customers averaged 7.8% year-on-year growth. Because this number is higher than its revenue growth during the same period, we can see the company's monetization has fallen. This quarter, Figs reported year-on-year revenue growth of 5.8%, and its $152.6 million of revenue exceeded Wall Street's estimates by 5.5%. Looking ahead, sell-side analysts expect revenue to grow 5% over the next 12 months, similar to its two-year rate. While this projection implies its newer products and services will fuel better top-line performance, it is still below average for the sector. Here at StockStory, we certainly understand the potential of thematic investing. Diverse winners from Microsoft (MSFT) to Alphabet (GOOG), Coca-Cola (KO) to Monster Beverage (MNST) could all have been identified as promising growth stories with a megatrend driving the growth. So, in that spirit, we've identified a relatively under-the-radar profitable growth stock benefiting from the rise of AI, available to you FREE via this link. Operating Margin Operating margin is a key measure of profitability. Think of it as net income - the bottom line - excluding the impact of taxes and interest on debt, which are less connected to business fundamentals. Figs's operating margin has shrunk over the last 12 months and averaged 3.2% over the last two years. Although this result isn't good, the company's elite historical revenue growth suggests it ramped up investments to capture market share. We'll keep a close eye to see if this strategy pays off. In Q2, Figs generated an operating margin profit margin of 6.5%, up 5.4 percentage points year on year. This increase was a welcome development and shows it was more efficient. Earnings Per Share We track the long-term change in earnings per share (EPS) for the same reason as long-term revenue growth. Compared to revenue, however, EPS highlights whether a company's growth is profitable. Sadly for Figs, its EPS declined by 34.3% annually over the last five years while its revenue grew by 30.3%. This tells us the company became less profitable on a per-share basis as it expanded. In Q2, Figs reported EPS at $0.04, up from $0.01 in the same quarter last year. This print easily cleared analysts' estimates, and shareholders should be content with the results. Over the next 12 months, Wall Street expects Figs to perform poorly. Analysts forecast its full-year EPS of $0.04 will hit $0.04. Key Takeaways from Figs's Q2 Results We were impressed by how significantly Figs blew past analysts' EPS expectations this quarter. We were also excited its EBITDA outperformed Wall Street's estimates by a wide margin. Zooming out, we think this was a solid print. The stock traded up 12% to $7.35 immediately after reporting. Sure, Figs had a solid quarter, but if we look at the bigger picture, is this stock a buy? If you're making that decision, you should consider the bigger picture of valuation, business qualities, as well as the latest earnings. We cover that in our actionable full research report which you can read here, it's free.
