Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

arstechnica.com

351–360 of 376 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#351

The '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…

I read about this recently with respect to GMs invention of planned obsolence for cars. They managed to give cars to all Americans which lasted a good time. To continue sales they had to reduce quality and do frequent style changes.

I guess it was really just a reinvention of what the fashion industry had been doing for a long time. Get people to throw away perfectly good clothes and biluy new ones because it no longer matched fashion.

We really ought to rethink this madness. Companies are already able to make really durable products but there is no economic incentive to do so.

How can we change the incentives?

I am not sure if that is possible in a regular free market economy, as one kind depend on sort of perpetual growth

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nay, sir. Just because there exists a multi-million dollar over a lifetime treatment regime doesn't mean that it is okay to suddenly "own" an equivalent chunk of cash from everyone cured. We invent treatments because we CAN'T find a cure. The treatment represents society's best effort to alleviate suffering. We solve problems so that we don't have to suffer them as a society/species anymore. Businesses exist until we…

> Just because there exists a multi-million dollar over a lifetime treatment regime doesn't mean that it is okay to suddenly "own" an equivalent chunk of cash from everyone cured. The chunk of cash is the only reason the company is doing the research to begin with. If finding a cure was easy then it would have been found a thousand years ago -- as some of them were. The ones remaining are hard and require a lot of re…

Government is already developing most of the drugs to my knowlege. Univerisites research drugs with public money. Universities then work with companies to commercialise it.

As far as I know the most productive research places like xerox-parc was pretty open ended. There was not clear profit driven goals.

We also see massive success with open source projects which suggests to me that there are other ways of organizing this research which we have done very little to explore.

Not strange since there is a mssive profit incentive by industry to lobby us against ever trying alternatives.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. A huge part of the problem is the public reaction to how for-profit research is supposed to work. In theory a cure is highly valuable. People should be willing to pay as much for it as the alternative, meaning as much as it would cost for multiple…

>People should be willing to pay as much for it as the alternative Maybe. But maybe there's also something wrong with expecting that much. Somehow Sidney Farber didn't decide that he was going to charge the families of kids with ALL the actuarial value of the remainder of their lives. It can be frustrating to see the public, out of ignorance, grossly misjudge the relative contributions to health of, say, a vaccine de…

> Maybe. But maybe there's also something wrong with expecting that much. Somehow Sidney Farber didn't decide that he was going to charge the families of kids with ALL the actuarial value of the remainder of their lives.

The problem is this. Suppose the total value of a cure is two billion dollars but it takes a billion to do the research. You can say they should get, say, 1.2 billion instead of the entire two, but that isn't actually that much different, and if you make it 0.8 billion then the research doesn't happen. And it's really hard to calibrate that sort of thing -- you can't just look at the amount the research actually cost because that doesn't take into account the risk of failure, which you have to compensate for or you won't get the investment.

Which is also where the apparent inequity comes from, when a million dollars in research produces a billion dollars in profit. But that's usually because it was a thousand to one shot to begin with. If it wasn't, why has it taken this long for someone to take ownership of that huge pile of risk-free money, instead of the cure being discovered 30 years ago and already being out of patent?

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because there exists a multi-million dollar over a lifetime treatment regime doesn't mean that it is okay to suddenly "own" an equivalent chunk of cash from everyone cured. The chunk of cash is the only reason the company is doing the research to begin with. If finding a cure was easy then it would have been found a thousand years ago -- as some of them were. The ones remaining are hard and require a lot of re…

Government is already developing most of the drugs to my knowlege. Univerisites research drugs with public money. Universities then work with companies to commercialise it. As far as I know the most productive research places like xerox-parc was pretty open ended. There was not clear profit driven goals. We also see massive success with open source projects which suggests to me that there are other ways of organizing…

> Government is already developing most of the drugs to my knowlege. Univerisites research drugs with public money. Universities then work with companies to commercialise it.

That's a nice little scam they put together a while back. If the government funds the research then it shouldn't be patented -- the taxpayer already paid for it, they shouldn't have to pay for it a second time.

But the industry has better lobbyists than the public, so they get the taxpayer to fund the research, then wait to see if it pans out, then buy it for pennies on the dollar after they already have some evidence that it works. If it doesn't work, the taxpayer foots the bill and gets nothing. If it does work, the taxpayers have to pay even more money to use the fruits of the research they already paid for.

It's corruption plain and simple.

> We also see massive success with open source projects which suggests to me that there are other ways of organizing this research which we have done very little to explore.

Open source works, but it's mostly non-governmental.

The thing that worked really well historically was small research trials conducted by individual doctors as part of their practice and then replicated at larger scale if they panned out. That's all but impossible with the current FDA rules, somewhat for good reason (some of those experiments had a tangential relationship with ethics). But the current rules are just crushingly bureaucratic.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#355
This is such a nothing story. A quote from the article itself:

>To get around the sustainability issue overall, the report suggests that biotech companies focus on diseases or conditions that seem to be becoming more common and/or are already high-incidence. It also suggests that companies be innovative and constantly expanding their portfolio of treatments. This can “offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets." Lastly, it hints that, as such cures come to fruition, they could open up more investment opportunities in treatments for “disease of aging.”

In other words, Sachs is saying that just because you cure a disease, that doesn't mean you can sit on your ass. You have to keep finding diseases to cure. O, the horror.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of my comment are you responding to?

The part about fear of diseases, for example. We've always feared diseases, and the fear was due to having seen babies or young people die of diseases that have now almost disappeared, such as measles. People that think they know better, however, have lost this fear and are responsible of the failure to establish herd immunity, and of the occasional deaths of immunodepressed or just unlucky people due to preventable…

You seem to be responding to something I didn't say.

I only said that demand for any preventive measures against X, can be artificially inflated by injecting fear of X into the populace.

Since vaccines are a preventive measure, this is applicable to vaccines as well.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the Post Office model. When profitable, it contributes to the general fund. See my other comment here. Political hobbling and fuckery related to post office operations done to marginalize otherwise exemplary performance aside, the model has merit.

The post office has a govenrment-granted monopoly on first class mail service, and does pretty poorly when it competes for non-first-class mail logistics.

A necessary monopoly. Without it, service would not be universal.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#359
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the extra money does go to R&D (though that's somewhat misleading: a lot of "R&D" spending is unnecessary duplication of safety trials because the FDA doesn't recognise any foreign medical safety standards, not even e.g. the EU). But a substantial chunk of it is wasteful inefficiencies due to multiple layers of middlemen (there are typically 5 layers between the insurance company that's paying and the company…

"unnecessary duplication of safety trials because the FDA doesn't recognise any foreign medical safety standards, not even e.g. the EU)" I would say in some cases that is a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

It's very hard to argue against a safety trial - of course if you duplicate safety trials then there will be occasional cases where you catch something that the original trial missed. But ultimately far more people have died or suffered because a medicine wasn't available yet than been killed or hurt by medicine being approved too early.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#360
post #126

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?

Your examples are all local government with local accountability to a small group of local voters. At nation-scale the story is different

I don't follow you. How is providing fire brigade services any different from providing health care? Or providing a functional justice system different from providing health care? They all provide concrete but hard-to-quantify value to the society around them, and aim to serve the public good.

As further examples of state level institutions we could also look at coast guard and customs service. And, of course, the tax officials (what ever their local name happens to be in various countries).

A modern nation state is full of public institutions with dedicated personnel to carry the institutions mission.

Public institutions work just fine around the world in various countries, performing a multitude of missions. That's not to say they are immune to various pathologies, but that applies to all organizations, public, private, for-profit or non-profit. Public institutions work fine when they are fulfilling a legally defined obligation under a democratically chosen government.

The thing everyone wants to avoid is pathological cronyism. The key to this is to make sure the political power pool has churn - so there is no predictable kingpin with executive power around whom the power and corruption accumulates. Which, democratically chosen governments provide (with varying capacity, but even two parties is probably enough).

I agree, no one wants to funnel tax payer money just to amass state power. But some things that improve life really cannot in any obvious way be guided by profit mechanism, and some things are just too capital intensive to be able to do on a small scale. The obvious place to look for capital for large scale projects that add value to the general public is the state.

Note: although monarchs do exist as mostly figure heads, modern monarch seldom have executive power. Compare this to some countries with dictators or monarch with actual executive power.

Post reply on HN