It is you who said it August 9
Tensions between Switzerland and the USA
Find your mail of readers of August 9 here.
Swiss-USA
Compensation, establishment of the Confederation which manages the funds and the fortune of the AVS, in particular, had the idea of engineering recently awarding the depository mandate to the American bank State Street. Thus, the money of the Swiss people is no longer managed by a Swiss bank. Idea of genius, I said.
This situation is naturally unacceptable and constitutes a political and legal error. It represents an increased risk for the funds concerned and an unjustified questioning of our Swiss bankers.
In an incomprehensible way, our federal deputies, in addition, supported mainly this absurd decision, while the National Council commission had requested the termination of the new contract.
I hope that the preference recklessly given to an American bank to manage the money of the Swiss people has been put on the table of negotiations by our federal illustists.
The manifest absence of vision, strategy and lucidity of our federal elected officials is staggering, confusing, in the defense of the Swiss people.
Like the F-35 American planes, drones and other failed flights, our federal representatives have the manifest art of blindness and dead end.
Fernand Briguet, Épalinges
Swiss-USA
What Donald Trump seems to neglect is that the real critical question lies in the overall costs of the health system. In Switzerland, the cost of health represents just under 12% of GDP, compared to more than 16% in the USA. Medicines represent 15 to 20% of total expenses. It is a substantial percentage, but by focusing on the cost of drugs, we attack a tree that hides the forest.
In the United States, one of the most important factors in the health costs spiral is the large number of medical disputes. It is not uncommon for consultations or medical invoices to be brought before the courts, in a context where lawyers specializing in medical disputes are numerous. Consequently, doctors must protect themselves with particularly expensive civil liability insurance.
In many cases, doctors practice defensive medicine aimed primarily at avoiding legal proceedings rather than improving the health of patients. This has the effect of multiplying consultations: where a European patient would consult a single doctor, an American patient will often see two or three for the same problem.
Thus, redundant consultations, high insurance premiums and legal costs contribute significantly to health costs inflation – regardless of the price of medicines. Reforming the justice system in the USA would have a very significant impact on health costs.
Focusing only on the cost of pharmaceutical products is therefore a simplistic and, above all, not promising approach.
Swiss-USA
Donald Trump’s threat to surcharged drugs, even Swiss, highlights a reality that can no longer be ignored: the prices of drugs are often too high, on both sides of the Atlantic.
In Switzerland, while Lamal bonuses climb each year, the population is rightly questioning: how to justify that certain treatments cost so expensive, while laboratories display record profits? The answer can no longer be left to industry alone.
It is time for politics to commit serenely but firmly. A priority track: establishing complete transparency on the costs of developing, production and marketing medication. This would evaluate, objectively, if the prices charged are justified.
Other countries, such as Canada or Italy, have opened this path. Switzerland can be inspired by it. Ultimately, it could condition the reimbursement by the LAMAL to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between real cost and price requested.
This transparency does not aim to punish innovation, but to strengthen public confidence and guarantee equitable access to treatments. A peaceful debate and based on facts is possible. It is even essential.
Did you find an error? Please report it to us.
