21–30 of 136 posts
This seems quite important, and raises questions about whether free market capitalism is actually the best or only model to spur innovation (spoiler: I don't think it is, at all).
This seems quite important, and raises questions about whether free market capitalism is actually the best or only model to spur innovation (spoiler: I don't think it is, at all).
> For 1 billion Australian dollars — $766 million U.S. — Australia gets, for five years, all the hep C medicine it can use. What will happen in five years ? If we follow the Netflix model, a lot of what used to be available will simply stop being there because the producer will markup the price significantly. In Netflix case, I don't really care since I can download the movies from other sources anyway, but for drugs…
Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. IMO, it would be far preferable to treat pharmaceuticals as a last resort, focusing instead on preventative medicine and addressing the underlying social issues that cause the medicine to be prescribed in the first place. From the article: Hep C kills more peo…
> Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. Because it's pretty darn obvious that once you have Hep C, yes, prescription drugs are the right choice. No one's pumping Hep C drugs into people who don't have Hep C. > Surely the solution to this epidemic is to address the underlying drug problems first? I…
This seems quite important, and raises questions about whether free market capitalism is actually the best or only model to spur innovation (spoiler: I don't think it is, at all).
Especially when lives are at stake! Market capitalism is probably fine for coffee shops, less so for insulin pumps.
Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. IMO, it would be far preferable to treat pharmaceuticals as a last resort, focusing instead on preventative medicine and addressing the underlying social issues that cause the medicine to be prescribed in the first place. From the article: Hep C kills more peo…
> Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. Because it's pretty darn obvious that once you have Hep C, yes, prescription drugs are the right choice. No one's pumping Hep C drugs into people who don't have Hep C. > Surely the solution to this epidemic is to address the underlying drug problems first? I…
I'll just leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development#Res...
From the link, it looks like it costs ~$10bn per successful drug, at the top end of that list.
Australia paid $750m for 5 years access.
Australia has ~1/10th the population of the United States. and ~1/3rd the population of the UK.
If just the UK, USA and Australia paid at that same rate (per capita) then they would cover that 10bn average development cost in 5 years.
Seems like it's a good suggestion
Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. IMO, it would be far preferable to treat pharmaceuticals as a last resort, focusing instead on preventative medicine and addressing the underlying social issues that cause the medicine to be prescribed in the first place. From the article: Hep C kills more peo…
Actually an easier solution is providing free needles. No massive society has ever been drug-free AFAIK.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2009/08/27/treating-not-pun...
This seems quite important, and raises questions about whether free market capitalism is actually the best or only model to spur innovation (spoiler: I don't think it is, at all).
What's stopping national health systems from opening their own pharmaceutical branches?
(because governments earn BIG TAXES from these other companies ;)... which pays their wages... see where the rabbit hole leads.. )
Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. IMO, it would be far preferable to treat pharmaceuticals as a last resort, focusing instead on preventative medicine and addressing the underlying social issues that cause the medicine to be prescribed in the first place. From the article: Hep C kills more peo…
> Maybe I’m missing something, but discussions on the cost of medicine never seem to question whether using prescription drugs is the right choice to begin with. Because it's pretty darn obvious that once you have Hep C, yes, prescription drugs are the right choice. No one's pumping Hep C drugs into people who don't have Hep C. > Surely the solution to this epidemic is to address the underlying drug problems first? I…
However, that is what is being done with HIV drugs under the guise of PrEP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-exposure_prophylaxis
So I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out, specially if Pharma companies see a way to profit out of it.