231–240 of 376 posts
I think there's a potential policy play in this. There is already a class of drugs, known as orphan drugs, which are targeted to rarer diseases that currently have no gold standard treatment. Companies are incentivized by the US FDA to make drugs for these conditions. Maybe the FDA could also make a policy space for "cure incentives" which would provide additional economic benefits to companies willing to make drugs…
The health industry has no reason to cure patients. On the contrary, they have reasons to create new patients. And it's across the board. I tell myself exactly that when I look at my toothbrush. A toothbrush lasts about ~3 weeks before needing replacing. I'm sure someone in the industry will tell me that it's because it's made of unobtainium unicorn hair specially designed to make my teeth whiter and all that. I also…
I used the same toothbrush for a year. Is this bad? How do you know when to replace it?
- when the bristles become less stiff (i.e. signs of wear)
- or every 3 months
I think there's a potential policy play in this. There is already a class of drugs, known as orphan drugs, which are targeted to rarer diseases that currently have no gold standard treatment. Companies are incentivized by the US FDA to make drugs for these conditions. Maybe the FDA could also make a policy space for "cure incentives" which would provide additional economic benefits to companies willing to make drugs…
The 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.
Isn't this just like paying insurance premiums ? Whenever you are sick, the doctor / insurance company loses money curing you.
I wonder if insurance companies do anything towards funding cheap "unsustainable" cures? Seems like it'd have a high ROI for them.
Companies don’t actually want profit if it would also benefit every competitor equally. A cure for a disease would benefit all insurance companies, so there is no competitive advantage for an insurance company to develop one.
The 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.
Cute, but problematic when you need palliative care for a chronic condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
It's all multinational these days. Only 4/10 of the big players are in the US https://www.tharawat-magazine.com/facts/10-largest-pharmaceu... and that's quite logic if you remember that the European market is pretty much harmonized and twice as populated as the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remembering basic human moral values might help as well.
I don't develop cures for diseases at all. Is this moral? If I may go out on a limb and speculate, you don't develop cures for diseases at all either. Is this moral? If someone is going to dedicate their careers to searching for cures to diseases, but only if they can earn a competitive salary doing so, are they more or less moral than us? For the equivalent case for investment, start with "I don't pay people to sear…
> This is one of the downsides of mobbing, shaming and regulating away outrageous prices. If pharma companies can't charge you in the ballpark of a lifetime's earnings for a one-shot, one-shots will be less compelling to them compared with treatments you have to take twice a day for the rest of your life.
Companies are run by human beings. Ignoring the stuff about "fidiciary duty" (mainly because I think it's highly contentious to infer that it overrides moral choices and partly because that is a highly complex topic in it's own right) - people can make choices that involve making less profit and saving lives. If you're not high enough up the food chain to make these decisions then you can choose to leave your job in protest.
Therefore companies can choose to take the "less compelling" but more moral option. And I can judge them on their choices and so can you. And they can choose to disagree with our judgement. That's how morality works. Shades of grey and difficult choices...
I think in addressing the GP comment I have hopefully addressed yours too. We all make our own moral decisions and we all make our own moral judgements. Just because these processes are complex and reasonable people can disagree doesn't mean that morality is meaningless. It's just means that it's hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies don’t actually want profit if it would also benefit every competitor equally. A cure for a disease would benefit all insurance companies, so there is no competitive advantage for an insurance company to develop one.
Yea, good point. I can imagine ways where it works out well (e.g. the insurer that found the cheap cure patents it and charges some expensive price that's still significantly cheaper than a lifetime of non-curing treatments. Everybody wins, but the insurance company that owns the cure wins the most.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen." Why? Schools are not for-profit institutions (well, not everywhere). Police don't make a profit. Nor does the fire brigade. Or the military, for that matter. Are all of these disasters waiting to happen?
You have never heard of private military companies? They are extensively used byvthe US mostly for non combat situations. They are very effective, for profit, and much less costly than the regular army.
[citation needed] My understanding is that they are more expensive than uniformed soldiers.