31–40 of 367 posts
The US is subsidizing the rest of the world. When Canada decrees that the price of something will by X, then guess who pays?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are really two villains here, Mylan, of course, but more importantly, the FDA. FDA regulations make the cost of bringing a new medical device to the market absurd. There are no competitors because the time and effort to bring a competing device is so ridiculously high that it doesn't pay to do so. I have a child with a peanut allergy. I am worried every damn day of my life. I see articles about people who die e…
So, The FDA, because they require drug and device makers to demonstrate efficacy and safety by going through a rigorous clinical trial process, are evil? Really? I also find your comment pretty uninformed considering that the FDA just paved the way for generic drug makers to basically "knock-off" super expensive biologic drugs like Humira and Enbrel which were previously covered by similar patents. The FDA has it's p…
The US is subsidizing the rest of the world. When Canada decrees that the price of something will by X, then guess who pays?
100% of the surplus accruing to pharmaceutical does not go toward research. Of the X% that does go to research, that marginal increase is likely not as effective as the budgets before the increased margin.
Also, patents shift effort from areas with low patentability prospects to areas with higher patentability prospects, even if the rate of return in terms of public health would have been substantially higher if the former opportunities were maximized first.
For that and many other reasons, the net social gain from pharmaceutical patents is contentious. Many economists have argued that the only justification is improved incentive to cover the cost of our expensive regulatory environment. Patents for almost everything else? Almost certainly a net loss.
There's little evidence that patent monopolies are needed to induce investment, generally. Don't forget that there's almost $100 trillion in liquid, investable assets floating around out there. There's more than enough capital to fund anything with even a tiny predicted profit. But individual capitalists want to maximize their returns, and monopolies often provide better margins. That good patents attract more capital is not evidence of anything; capital will first go to anything that promises higher returns relative to anything else, even if the net effect is reduced overall wealth creation for investors.
Imagine two countries with equivalently sized economies at year 1. The first is run by a dictator who will use the power of the state to extract wealth from the citizens. Part of the process involves giving sweet-heart deals to foreign investors, partly as a way to off-shore the money. For those investors the returns are 20%.
The second country is a stable democracy with low corruption. Politicians only seek foreign investment when it makes fiscal sense, and the terms only provide returns of about 10%.
In the short-term, where do you think all the capital will go to first? Over 30 years, where do you think most of the net global wealth creation will come from?
Ergo, that investors prefer investments backed by patents is proof of nothing.
That the U.S. and developed countries are leaders in research and investment also proves very little. We're also leaders in areas like consumer and industrial design, organizational management, etc, with no or minimal regulatory protection. We could be (and arguably are) leaders in technology despite protections, not because of them.
One of the early on-line responses was "maybe we can figure out how to 3D print these cases". It turns out that an Epi-pen is just a plastic safety housing around a normal syringe. Some discussions: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4y5481/cost_of_epipen... https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/4y7f26/epipen_f...
That second discussion got heated quite fast. I agree with the downvoters though. 3D printing a medical device is not something to take lightly. Edit: Here's why I agree. You download this design from the internet, and 3D print the parts. You then assemble it. Awesome! Some time later, you get an allergic reaction. You use the pen, but it fails to work correctly. Who's responsible? The designer? You (if you're alive)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, an EpiPen costs $79 US ($99 AUD) in Australia.
That's about what it cost in the US until recently. It's a decades-old generic med, the patent on the delivery device is long expired ( https://www.google.com/patents/US4031893 ), and the original research was even done by the US military.
One of the early on-line responses was "maybe we can figure out how to 3D print these cases". It turns out that an Epi-pen is just a plastic safety housing around a normal syringe. Some discussions: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4y5481/cost_of_epipen... https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/4y7f26/epipen_f...
That second discussion got heated quite fast. I agree with the downvoters though. 3D printing a medical device is not something to take lightly. Edit: Here's why I agree. You download this design from the internet, and 3D print the parts. You then assemble it. Awesome! Some time later, you get an allergic reaction. You use the pen, but it fails to work correctly. Who's responsible? The designer? You (if you're alive)…
tldr: Reliable design is HUGELY important. You can't just put these things together haphazardly.
"The fact that less than 50% of participants across all devices could follow the labeled instructions without committing a single error provides confirmation that the need for training on the use of epinephrine autoinjectors is still important...The user-centered device design may have a significant impact on correct epinephrine autoinjector use and patient preference."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are really two villains here, Mylan, of course, but more importantly, the FDA. FDA regulations make the cost of bringing a new medical device to the market absurd. There are no competitors because the time and effort to bring a competing device is so ridiculously high that it doesn't pay to do so. I have a child with a peanut allergy. I am worried every damn day of my life. I see articles about people who die e…
hmmh... what's the reg, specifically? what I see is an unholy alliance between the regulators and industry to extract max profits. if you don't have an approving authority for e.g. Epipens, it seems to be that you get something like the supplements industry which is mostly marketing and exploiting the ignorant. you need some IP protection for the crazy amount of incredibly skilled R&D and massive testing that goes in…
As drug innovation has slowed, single payer US healthcare will be the solution to these problems. Nationalize some/all of the provider networks and drugs like this become built to spec government bids where buying power drives cost down.
That the price for the case is expensive just rose as random is serious business. There really is no need for it to be so expensive