The name of the school is `Johns Hopkins`. Carry on!
The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
11–20 of 537 posts
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#12It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
I've heard this argument a lot, even by diehard conservatives. The amazing thing about it coming from these diehard conservatives (I'm not saying you're one of them, your comment just reminded me of it) is they're basically saying it's OK for the USA to help the rest of the world socialize their drug costs but it's not OK for the USA to help socialize drug costs for their own citizens.
I should say it’s the kind of comment that throws off the whole thread, instead of talking about the article we are all arguing about talking points.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#13It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
I’m not sure what kind of R&D the $800 or whatever it costs now Epipen is paying for. R&D for lobbyists? Or profits because the company gamed the market.
^famed^gamed
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#14It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
Meh -- If this is the case, it would be far better to explicitly fund research and development in a separate appropriation rather than just mindlessly subsidizing all prescription meds. Calamities like the Valeant fraud would be much less common without the US dramatically overpaying for drugs. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/04/inside-the-val...
The Valeant fraud was 90% sketchy accounting and 10% price hikes, more Enron than Martin Shkreli.
By anyone's standard, they are not representative of the U.S. Pharma market as a whole.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#15It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
If this is in fact true it means the rest of the world is freeloading off the US system. Not saying I'm convinced it is true. I'd like to see a deeper unbiased analysis.
Define true, it is true that the US spends more on medical research than the rest of the world combined, and produces more drug patents than the rest of the world combined.
https://assets1b.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Rese...
This btw went up fairly recently especially since Indian generics became accepted world wide in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.
The US used to produce 20-30% of the world’s drug patents now its peaking at 60%.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#16It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
I’m not sure what kind of R&D the $800 or whatever it costs now Epipen is paying for. R&D for lobbyists? Or profits because the company gamed the market.
The EpiPen is one of the "hard to manufacture" drugs I mentioned. Although it is top of mind to many, it is not representative of the market.
EDIT: "hard to manufacture" is in quotes because it's what I said in my parent comment (though to be fair I said "costly to manufacture"), but I meant it as an umbrella term for everything that can't be substituted by generics
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#17It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
Do you have any sources/data for this? I would be very curious to see it. The mentioned costs in this article only point to
> higher drug prices, higher salaries for doctors and nurses, higher hospital administration costs and higher prices for many medical services
I’m not sure if R&D costs are factored in at all for this particular study.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#18It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
I’m not sure what kind of R&D the $800 or whatever it costs now Epipen is paying for. R&D for lobbyists? Or profits because the company gamed the market.
I don't know about Epipen, but it can cost billions to bring new drugs to market https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/11/Tufts-Study-Find...
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#19It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
Do you have any sources/data for this? I would be very curious to see it. The mentioned costs in this article only point to > higher drug prices, higher salaries for doctors and nurses, higher hospital administration costs and higher prices for many medical services I’m not sure if R&D costs are factored in at all for this particular study.
The US spends more on biomedical R&D and produces more drug patents than the entirety of the world combined.
https://assets1b.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Rese...
As far as it’s implications on the cost of healthcare in the US I don’t think there is data for it since it’s pretty hard to measure.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#20It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
I’m not sure what kind of R&D the $800 or whatever it costs now Epipen is paying for. R&D for lobbyists? Or profits because the company gamed the market.
Certainly return on capital investment is considered when deciding whether to invest in R&D.