Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
91–100 of 376 posts
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#92this is why can't have nice things.
why doesn't goldman sachs just grow humans and harvest their organs?
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#93The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
I think it's totally ok, and it should be accepted. Public services are meant to be cost centers. If they bring in profits, they do so indirectly (e.g. better health of citizens -> better GDP -> more money in taxes).
The trick is to still find ways to apply pressure so that a service gets better and more efficient in time, instead of attracting parasites that'll use it as money drain. Like a lot of healthcare-related businesses seem to do (heard plenty of horror stories from someone I know who's studying medicine and interned at hospitals, and we're talking about a country with public healthcare).
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are jumping from one extreme to the other. Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. You can certainly keep a 'competitive' environment which is regulated with incentives. And I do agree healthcare needs this, and shouldn't live purely by the free market.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
You are talking about providing health care. Not inventing new treatments. Those countries are all using treatments invented developed and funded by the market model which is mostly paid for by us consumers, which is part of why us prices are so high.
The US has the best outcomes in the world if you have money. Which is why rich people from all over the world come here for treatment. We just have lower average outcomes because of access disparities.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#95The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
There's a huge mismatch between the interest of the investors (sell as much drugs as possible, for the highest possible price) and those of the consumers (be healthy without depending on external input).
The pharma industry should be working hard on planning its own obsolescence.
The same dynamic is at work in the food industry, which is responsible for the obesity epidemics.
Capitalism as it is practiced right now has catastrophic flaws. We need to change the rules of the game, yes, and not necessarily seek profit and growth at all costs.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
R&D doesn't happen in non-profit government corporations either (atleast not largely). Most R&D comes from the manufacturers where the state (or relevant institution) buys the drugs from.
However, in a single payer or similar systems, if a drug company decides to hike the price, the state (or institution) can swallow the cost and continue medical services to citizens until the situation is resolved (either by legislation or court cases). Since the state (or institution) is not a for-profit it doesn't matter as much if they sink a lot of cost as long as everyone can get their medical treatment.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#97Wait a sec, Gilead made $12.5B in 2015, $4B this year, on a single drug, and that's not enough ? Gosh, I remember when $16.5B was a lot of money.
Their hepC treatment is $84,000. And also somehow not profitable enough.
There is also now a $300 generic.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#98The story goes that in China, doctors used to be paid for keeping you healthy. When you got sick, they didn't get any money anymore. This sounds to me like a system with the proper incentives.
That sounds like the stupidest idea, unless doctors are given the right and ability to control your activities and diet, and who you breed with or are bred from to avoid genetic defects.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
You are talking about providing health care. Not inventing new treatments. Those countries are all using treatments invented developed and funded by the market model which is mostly paid for by us consumers, which is part of why us prices are so high. The US has the best outcomes in the world if you have money. Which is why rich people from all over the world come here for treatment. We just have lower average outcom…
[Citation Needed]
The US has average healthcare when money is no object. The weathty often seak treatment outside the US and occasionally wealthy people come to the US on a case by case basis.
The core problem is treatments entail risk, so doing more eventually results in worse outcomes. Further the incentives are around doing more, putting the healthcare system in opposition to heathy patients.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
They may, but these institutions are keen on cures and not on treatments.
I am completely on the side of having government agencies developing cures and licensing out to companies then. This would avoid the perverse incentive of the OP. It also would stop the pervasive argument that patents are necessary to get new pharmaceuticals developed (I don't believe in patents benefit to society).