71–80 of 138 posts
I'd go a step further... you cannot sell a drug unless there is another company prepared to sell a generic version. It's a national security issue. Dual vendor required. Also, no blocks on re-imports from foreign nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. If the US had a centralised health system like other developed countries they would have the same bargaining power. In NZ we have Pharmac who bulk purchases drugs for the country, they can get good deals because they operate in a free market and can play the pharma companies off each other. Don't blame other countries for your own governments inability to bargain. Pharma companies still have patents…
it's not about negotiation at all. NZ has a population of 5M. The largest private health insurer in the US, United Health, cover 40M people. They can, and do, negotiate drug prices. Who do you think would get a better deal?
One of the biggest reasons is that the US essentially subsidizes drugs for many other countries, such as Canada, that impose price controls, and threaten to allow other manufacturers to provide the drugs in their countries if the companies don't accept the imposed price. This enables these countries to get access to new medicine without paying the cost of developing the new medicine. Its time to end the trade war on…
are you sure that the cost of development is the real issue? the last numbers I saw, 2015, showed marketing budgets for medicine to be often times twice what was being spent on R&D in the US. currently, only four countries allow this time of marketing: New Zealand, Brazil, Hong Kong, and United States. it sounds like the US isn't necessarily subsidizing drug R&D, and instead is subsidizing marketing.
Second, marketing is costly since a lot of it is done in person. Hiring thousands of sales reps doesn't come cheap. It's not due to DTC commercials since only a small number of products actually have those.
Finally, you don't market something unless you bring in more money than you spend. So marketing pays for itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the last numbers I saw, 2015, showed marketing budgets for medicine to be often times twice what was being spent on R&D in the US. The marketing expense isn't necessarily avoidable. Suppose it costs $50M to research a drug and patients will pay $1000 for a course of treatment. If you do no marketing then you get forty thousand customers and can't recover your R&D. If you spend $100M on marketing then you get two hu…
Surely though the best marketing is the effectiveness of the product, if it's a good product then doctors will prescribe it. I don't know if it's true or not, but looking at US movies/tv shows it seems like everyones taking medication which I doubt they actually need. Here I don't know very many people who actively take regular medication, I know that people who move here complain at how doctors are stingy with presc…
That's true for very few physicians. The ones that are leaders in their field and do research know the ins and outs of new drugs, but your average doctor knows very little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not about negotiation at all. NZ has a population of 5M. The largest private health insurer in the US, United Health, cover 40M people. They can, and do, negotiate drug prices. Who do you think would get a better deal?
Is it the health insurer that negotiates though or the individual private health care providers and pharmacy chains (drug stores)?
And they do negotiate hard! United healthcare has over 100 products on it's exclusion list which means they told the drug company "no, we won't pay for your drug."
Crazy idea: all pharmaceutical research should be publicly funded and publicly-owned. No private ownership of drug patents, period. "But this will disincentive research!" Maybe. Or, tax people more in order to fund the research. The tax revenue would go directly to researcher salary, equipment, expenses. Even a large tax increase can't be worse than today, where people have to pay huge $$$ anyway, of which a large cu…
would you advocate government taking over other industries, or is there something special about biomedical research?
One of the biggest reasons is that the US essentially subsidizes drugs for many other countries, such as Canada, that impose price controls, and threaten to allow other manufacturers to provide the drugs in their countries if the companies don't accept the imposed price. This enables these countries to get access to new medicine without paying the cost of developing the new medicine. Its time to end the trade war on…
Like that time US subsidized Ebola Vaccine? By buying rights for 200K from publicly funded Canadian Uni research.
Crazy idea: all pharmaceutical research should be publicly funded and publicly-owned. No private ownership of drug patents, period. "But this will disincentive research!" Maybe. Or, tax people more in order to fund the research. The tax revenue would go directly to researcher salary, equipment, expenses. Even a large tax increase can't be worse than today, where people have to pay huge $$$ anyway, of which a large cu…
Back when the HIV epidemic started, President Reagan and his administration took the view that HIV is a deserved punishment from god for homosexuality and promiscuity. Now what are the chances that that administration would have invested even $1 in developing drugs for AIDS? Do we want to live in that kind of world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s clearly a market where large expenses are required to make progress. I’m thinking the discoveries should be made public goods through rewarding breakthroughs somehow. Or, devote some fraction of the National gdp to research. We’re talking at least the amount the market currently allocates, but preferably more.
> I’m thinking the discoveries should be made public goods through rewarding breakthroughs somehow. Maybe the people who create new medicines could be given a temporary monopoly to recoup costs and make some money, and in exchange their research becomes part of the public domain? I'm just spitballing here, but something like that might work...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it the health insurer that negotiates though or the individual private health care providers and pharmacy chains (drug stores)?
It's the insurer who negotiates with the drug companies directly. And they do negotiate hard! United healthcare has over 100 products on it's exclusion list which means they told the drug company "no, we won't pay for your drug."