Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–227 of 227 posts

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#221

Post by vineetdhanawat »

Yeroc wrote: post #176
tomjen3 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bayer is in it to make money, so presumably the reason the Indian government forced this deal is that Bayer would lose money under it. So no, it isn't fair.

Keep in mind that the government did NOT force Bayer to manufacture the drug, only to license it. I don't believe Bayer had any interest in pursuing the Indian market whatsoever since it was priced well beyond what the average person could afford. On the question of fairness: Is it fair for people to die because they can't afford a life-saving drug? I'm sure that's what it boiled down to for the Indian government. Ac…

Maybe, who knows. Bayer reported the price as part of Research Costs etc, maybe true! But at the end Question stands - "Was the price fair?" I dont think so!

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#222

Post by hrktb »

malandrew wrote: post #175
malandrew wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should doctors really be finding out about drugs from salespeople? It seems to me that this is a large part of the problem and perverts the incentives in the industry not to produce what people need but what they can sell. There has got to be a more efficient way for doctors to discover what drugs are useful to the patients they treat. Heck, look at the tech startup industry. Very few if any of us learn about new sta…

Why was this downvoted?

I didnt't downvote, but you might be drawing a too rosy picture of the software industry. There are a fleet of travelling salesman paying for dinners and giving away luxury goods . You'll see microsoft throwing big monney around to have it's products adopted. You'll see big industry contractors playing all the dirty games to get to sit at the same table as a big potential client.

It's plenty corrupt when you look at the big fishes, just not as much as the pharmatical industry (yet).

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#223

Post by Produce »

Aloisius wrote: post #205
Aloisius wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, having taken adderall nearly every day for 20 years, I can say that I have absolutely no temptation to take another when the first wears off. In fact, I tend to forget without an alarm and then wonder why I can't focus. Nor have I ever had any compulsion to clean everything in sight or pluck every hair from my face. It certainly makes cleaning easier, but I certainly don't feel the need to do it anymore on or off…

Yes indeed I often forget to take it during the weekends. I have no compulsion to take it when my prescription runs out (I often delay going to the doctor to get a refill and go a week without, especially if focus is not absolutely necessary). I didn't realize this was unusual.

Fair enough, that doesn't sound like an addiction at all. If you're just taking it to improve concentration, you might have luck with a combination of a Vitamin B complex, Piracetam and L-Tyrosine. All are cheap and have no side effects.

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#224

Post by ekianjo »

jbooth wrote: post #218
ekianjo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that we still got a Vioxx on the market even though we had those tons of regulations in place. There was a similar scandal in France recently with another drug called Mediator. Truth is, regulations do not replace ethics - Corporations knowlingly allowing patients to be hurt should be punished accordingly - there is no need to inflate regulations further and further, this has never solved the problem, just like…

The analogous argument is that because crime still happens, we should abolish the police force.

I never mentioned about removing all regulations in place. But things can be done to restrict their scope to where they were before, to manage the development of drugs at a more reasonable cost.

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#225

Post by streptomycin »

vannevar wrote: post #220
streptomycin wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Drug companies can't just cherry pick trials to report to the FDA. The FDA is involved from very early on in the process. Furthermore, if the drug company is doing suspicious things like shutting down trials, the FDA will be even more strict in their requirements for approval.

The drug companies don't need to shut down trials, they just need to spread their bets sufficiently to ensure there are some winners. Sort of a VC model, except they have a clearer victory condition in FDA approval. Once a drug is approved, the pharmaceutical equivalent of retail shelf space is assured and the marketing machine can kick in to guarantee profitability. And the FDA has little incentive to prevent margin…

If what you claim is true, and drug companies only get things approved by brute force, then we'd expect just 5% (for p-value of 0.05, as is commonly used) of trials to succeed at every level. But that's not the case.

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#226

Post by betterth »

pjscott wrote: post #171
betterth wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of the money goes into Phase III clinical trials. Don't bash the FDA - they're the most evidence based, scientifically minded regulatory body in our government. Preclinical and Phase I - II trials aren't too expensive, in the order of millions of dollars. But also remember, for every ~10,000 candidates that enter preclinical trials, about 1-2 will actually pass FDA approval. The billion number isn't just…

> If "the most rigorous evidence requirement in the world" is your example of "inefficient and corrupt", than I guess we'll just disagree. That is exactly where so much of the inefficiency comes from! How rigorous does an evidentiary requirement have to be before it costs more than it's worth? If getting FDA approval for a new drug cost, say, $100 billion, would the added safety be worth holding back all the drugs th…

The FDA has a number of ways of getting around this for drugs that have limited effect. This is for drugs to be used in the general population, drugs for major illnesses.

Orphan drugs are treated differently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

The FDA also maintains a list of pre-approved substances that can be used without testing. I think this is it: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm129662.htm

Re: Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

#227

Post by driverdan »

betterth wrote: post #113
driverdan wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Funny how there are so many SSRI's on the market. Why? What's wrong with SSRIs? > Funny how this model results in the conclusion that it's a good idea to give kids amphetamines when they are known neurotoxins. Giving amphetamines to children is certainly debatable but amphetamines are not neurotoxic. Meth amphetamines are neurotoxic, especially in recreational doses, but non-methylated amphetamines are not. > Funny…

Funny thing about meth is that it's not that dangerous -- it's almost identical to adderral. The methyl group (meth-amphetamine vs amphetamine) really only improves the ability of the drug to cross the blood-brain barrier. It's basically a form of adderal with a slightly stronger bioavailability curve. The reason why meth is a public health issue while addy arguably is not is mainly because requiring a Doctor rx, usi…

Adding a methyl group does more than improve bioavailability (and it's much more bioavailable, not "slightly stronger"). While both have nearly the same effects the long term side effects are much more significant for meth. Meth is neurotoxic, even when not abused as a recreational drug.
Post reply on HN