91–100 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I certainly hope you're not suggesting that we dispense with FDA approval for drug manufacturers just for the sake of increasing competition.
I don't need government approval to start manufacturing cars. Why for generic drugs? Note that you're paying plenty for having the FDA as gatekeeper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I they seem to be explicitly targeting generics, so R&D doesn't come into play. It's really just find someone who can build a known compound and press it into a pill. This has the potential to be massively disruptive.
Even generics need FDA approval. Manufacturers must demonstrate therapeutic equivalence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even generics need FDA approval. Manufacturers must demonstrate therapeutic equivalence.
That's interesting - even if they can prove chemically they're producing something that's already been approved?
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUs...
This article makes it seem like drug companies alone are responsible for predatory pricing in US healthcare, with hospitals being somehow on the consumer's side of the issue. In reality US hospitals are just as guilty of predatory behavior. If they do achieve lower costs through a new generics company, I do not trust them one bit to pass on the savings to patients. Why would they?
My father had good insurance. He went in for a spider bite. He needed to stay the night. I arrived and he thanked me for Teddy Bear, and flowers. I told him I didn't send you anything. He said, "Well someone did?"
Weeks later he called me up, and said the gift shop on the hospital send the gift, and charged the Insurance company $230. Billed under something like "psychological affirmations".
Any who--they are thieving entities. It kills me when I meet people, with no assets, who pay their inflated hospital bills out of American pride? They are so strong in their convictions, I don't even bring up a chapter 7. I understand they save live, but don't financially ruin patients.
One other memory. I went in for something. I had great insurance, so I didn't worry about the bill. They gave me a blood test. A week went by, and I got a bill for $900. I called my union, and they the hospital didn't know I had insurance.
My union said my bill would be $10. She said the hospital sent them the bill of $100, and I would pay my 10 percent. I asked, "Why do they only charge you $100?" She said, "It's about Collective Bargaining. Yea--I find it shocking too."
I always assumed it would be CVS that got into the game. There are are probably a dozen or so drugs that account for the majority of consumption. Flu vaccines, blood pressure, cholesterol, thyroid, insulin, asthma, progesterone, beta-blockers, gerd, etc. Providing these at minimum cost, as well as community public health services. Could be enormously cost effective. And extend general wellness and productivity many t…
I’m always surprised there isn’t more pharmacy-driven research or investment into exclusive over-the-counter medicines to mimic that strategy, or bidding wars to get exclusive pharmacy rights to new drug patents so that firms can get halo effect shopping.
(Not that I endorse this sort of corporate lechery, I’m just surprised, is all)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Country-owned means of production have usually not fared well vs competitive forces in the past. And it could be considered as unfair competition: a state-owned manufacturer could basically have a blank check from the government for any kind of investment and would not have to worry at all about profitability. It sounds very nice as a thought exercise, but economical incentives are very tightly linked with productivi…
Thinking of it as “unfair competition” implies that companies have some sort of entitlement to a market. They don’t. If my town wants to have its own fire department, it’s not “unfair” to privately owned fire departments anymore than working on my own car is “unfair” to professional mechanics.
The root of the problem with American drug companies is that they're insulated from open market competition by a government approvals process that costs billions--only a few companies have enough money to take a new drug to market. The government could reform this process but chooses not to, claiming it's necessary for consumer safety (certainly some kind of approvals process is).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even generics need FDA approval. Manufacturers must demonstrate therapeutic equivalence.
That's interesting - even if they can prove chemically they're producing something that's already been approved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is all nice and cynical sounding like HN loves when it comes to big companies, but even then: is that such a bad thing? You have ten years of a lot of people getting cheaper and better access to drugs, and you have a bunch of hospitals getting much-needed capacity increases with state-of-the-art facilities, and you have a proven business model for someone else to come in and take their turn at the money-making w…
Concur with maj maj maj maj... additionally, the the cynisism ignores the introduction of new competitive forces with a different moral vector in a largley unchecked market, the repurcussions of which are certainly uncertain, for certain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't need government approval to start manufacturing cars. Why for generic drugs? Note that you're paying plenty for having the FDA as gatekeeper.
There are numerous federal regulations concerning the manufacturing of cars.