Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who popularized the $36 vs $700 comparison and what primary sources back those figures?
Executive Summary
The $36 (or $35) monthly insulin cap traceable in public debate was first publicly proposed by Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks in 2019, and that proposal later fed into federal pilot programs and legislation; primary corroboration comes from reporting that cites Ricks’ interviews and public policy documents tied to the Medicare pilot and Inflation Reduction Act implementation [1]. Multiple analyses show that the specific “$36 vs $700” framing is not directly cited by the sources you provided; several documents neither use that exact comparison nor identify a single originator for the juxtaposition, though they do document large historical and cross‑border price gaps that underlie the contrast [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Who put the $36 cap on the map — a corporate CEO or policymakers?
Reporting identifies David Ricks, CEO of Eli Lilly, as the originator of the very idea of a roughly $35 monthly cap on insulin, a proposal he advanced publicly in 2019; that corporate-origin proposal was subsequently taken up by both the Trump administration as a Medicare pilot and later incorporated into legislative action under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, providing a clear line from a corporate policy pitch to federal adoption [1]. The claim that Ricks proposed such a figure is anchored in contemporaneous reporting and interviews; the same reporting notes the unusual dynamic where a pharmaceutical company’s proposal became a politically useful template for lawmakers, which complicates simple narratives that frame the cap purely as patient‑advocacy or government action. This chain of events carries implications about who shapes policy language and how corporate messaging can be repurposed in regulatory contexts [1].
2. Do primary sources actually back the $36 vs $700 numeric contrast?
The files you supplied do not contain a single definitive primary source that explicitly states “$36 versus $700” as a packaged comparison; instead, they present disparate primary figures and history that are sometimes summarized or repurposed in media frames. Some pieces document decades of insulin price escalation and list historical benchmarks — for example, price points in 1921, 1972, 1996, 2010, and 2017 — but they do not directly produce a contemporaneous $36 vs $700 comparison [4]. Separate academic analyses document stark cross‑national differences in per‑user spending, such as average U.S. user spending versus Canadian spending in 2018, but again these are not presented as a neat $36 vs $700 binary in the sources you provided [5] [6].
3. What the historical and comparative data do support — large gaps, varied metrics
The materials consistently show substantial price divergence over time and across borders, which explains why a pithy comparison like $36 vs $700 resonates politically: one set of figures reflects a capped monthly out‑of‑pocket target (the ~$35 proposal), while other figures reflect either list prices, per‑user annual spending, or international averages that can reach into the hundreds or thousands annually [4] [5]. For example, research cited in your set finds an average American insulin user spent $3,490 in 2018 versus $725 among Canadians; these are annual spending metrics and not monthly list prices, and their inclusion in reporting helps create the mental arithmetic that produces comparisons like “tens of dollars versus hundreds” even if no primary source states $700 as the precise counterpart to $36 [5] [6].
4. Where the reporting ecosystem amplified the contrast — agendas and context matter
The amplification of a concise “$36 vs $700” frame appears to be a product of journalistic shorthand, political messaging, and corporate communications rather than citation of a single empirical study that pairs those two numbers. The Eli Lilly CEO’s $35 cap proposal provided a neat, politically salable figure that advocates and some lawmakers used to contrast against higher outlays documented elsewhere; analysts noted the strategic advantage for a pharma executive to propose a modest cap that might blunt broader price‑control measures, revealing a potential corporate agenda to shape policy framing [1]. At the same time, patient advocates and media outlets used cross‑national spending and historical price trajectories to dramatize the gulf between what Americans pay and lower costs elsewhere, which fuels the rhetorical comparison even when primary sources are not directly paired [5].
5. Bottom line for researchers seeking primary evidence
If you need verifiable primary documentation for either side of the contrast, start with the reporting that quotes David Ricks and government announcements about the Medicare pilot and Inflation Reduction Act implementation for the ~$35 cap origin story [1]. For the higher‑price side, rely on peer‑reviewed spending analyses and historical price data that show per‑user annual expenditures and list price histories — these provide the numeric basis that reporters and advocates have used to create striking cross‑figure comparisons, though you should be clear about the different metrics involved (monthly cap vs annual spending vs list price) and avoid presenting them as a single sourced dyad when the supplied materials do not. [4] [5]