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

Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#71

Post by brazzy »

gambiting wrote: post #60
brazzy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is extracting the maximum possible revenue from people for giving them something that saves their lives NOT evil?

As far as I know, companies are supposed to make profit,they are not charities. Especially if you are so large that you sell shares in company, then you have a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders to always take decisions that maximise profit over everything else(unless you can show that selling your product cheaper is going to bring more money to the company in the long run). This is not "evil" - this is just how th…

> a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders to always take decisions that maximise profit over everything else [..] This is not "evil" - this is just how these companies work.

Yes, it is very much evil.

> The only way to combat this is to have a national health care system,that sets their own prices for drugs it buys from companies.

No. All it takes is a different patent system that reduces the (artificial, granted by society) monopoly awarded to patent holders. Or, as a more radical change, eliminate monopolies for drugs entirely and fund research publically.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#72

Post by pc86 »

All things being equal, stuff is always going to be more expensive in the US than in India. If you're complaining about $70,000 here v. $2,500 there, I'm going to assume you're charging the same for your services here as someone is in India, right? Right?

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#73

Post by gambiting »

brazzy wrote: post #71
gambiting wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, companies are supposed to make profit,they are not charities. Especially if you are so large that you sell shares in company, then you have a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders to always take decisions that maximise profit over everything else(unless you can show that selling your product cheaper is going to bring more money to the company in the long run). This is not "evil" - this is just how th…

> a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders to always take decisions that maximise profit over everything else [..] This is not "evil" - this is just how these companies work. Yes, it is very much evil. > The only way to combat this is to have a national health care system,that sets their own prices for drugs it buys from companies. No. All it takes is a different patent system that reduces the ( artificial, granted by…

If you opened your own company you would have to play by the same rules. Even if you wanted to sell your product cheaper, you would not be able to due to obligations to your shareholders,which have a legal binding. Is the system evil? Yes. Are you evil for following the rules? No.

And as for the patents - how would you deal with a problem that after spending millions on research somebody could copy you and sell the same product for the 1/100 of the price? I know that the US patent system is broken, but this problem is very real.

As for the publicly funded research - this is the best option, but some countries like US oppose this so strongly that I don't think it would work.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#74

Post by dontstealmyname »

coldtea wrote: post #34
melling wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide some data to back that up because it is a common belief that the high cost of producing a new drug is offset by the US consumer.

What high cost? US companies pay more money for advertising than for creating the drug. Add other regulation and inefficiencies, and subsidized research would work with 1/10 the money. Not to mention that because of the commercialization of medicine, tons of research is for BS like Viagra and other such drugs (like the tons of stupid feel-good "energy" drugs, so that your boss can squeeze even more overtime out of yo…

Viagra was not initially being developed as an erection pill it was a heart medication (I think) but turned out to be better at causing erections so they ran with that.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#75

Post by snarfy »

Please tell me how charging $50,000/yr for 30 year old dimethyl fumarate (BG-12/tecfidera) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis is due to innovation. It shouldn't cost more than aspirin. The only reason they are charging that much is because that's how much all other MS medications cost.

Oligopoly, it's like a monopoly, only legal.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#76

Post by throwawayG9 »

electromagnetic wrote: post #66
coldtea wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the European countries had to had to pay for their own defense? The European countries pay big bucks for their own defense, thank you very much. And the US doesn't provide any defense at all. It merely uses its pressure to get the European countries to participate in its inane crusades and wars, from Korea to Iraq, which are for it's own interests. Plus, defense against what? The only thing that brings any…

I think when the UK paid 1/20th of the cost to R&D Trident 2, but got 1/5 of the orders, I'd say yeah that was pretty heavily subsidized by the US to have an ally country with stealth-nuclear capabilities. I also think you have absolutely no clue who international politics works by your blatant naivety. There's a lot more at stake than "access to oil". FYI Iraq showed oil reserves far superior to that of Saudi Arabia…

TLDR:

> personally I enjoy my way of life

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#77

Post by takluyver »

venomsnake wrote: post #7
nhashem wrote: post #4

This is basically the paradox of US healthcare innovation. Canada can tell its pharmaceutical companies, "yeah, that cool drug you just invented, we're not gonna pay you what you want for that." And what option does the pharmaceutical company have? Convince healthcare providers to charge retail prices to their patients as an out-of-pocket expense, or... reduce prices accordingly. Because healthcare payments are not f…

According to Ben Goldcare (Bad Science, Bad Pharma) the companies spend around 12% of their budgets on R&D and 30% on marketing ... so the R&D is the easy part to be funded - just outlaw the direct marketing to consumers and doctors and the companies can spend 3 times as much on R&D with no problems.

Having heard Ben Goldacre speak, the problem isn't just direct-to-consumer marketing, which is already illegal in the UK for prescription drugs. Drug companies actually spend a lot of effort marketing to doctors, who think that they're smart enough to resist sales pitches. There's apparently evidence that they're not - doctors who see drug company reps prescribe those companies' drugs more often and have worse outcomes.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#78

Post by brazzy »

gambiting wrote: post #73
brazzy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders to always take decisions that maximise profit over everything else [..] This is not "evil" - this is just how these companies work. Yes, it is very much evil. > The only way to combat this is to have a national health care system,that sets their own prices for drugs it buys from companies. No. All it takes is a different patent system that reduces the ( artificial, granted by…

If you opened your own company you would have to play by the same rules. Even if you wanted to sell your product cheaper, you would not be able to due to obligations to your shareholders,which have a legal binding. Is the system evil? Yes. Are you evil for following the rules? No. And as for the patents - how would you deal with a problem that after spending millions on research somebody could copy you and sell the s…

> And as for the patents - how would you deal with a problem that after spending millions on research somebody could copy you and sell the same product for the 1/100 of the price? I know that the US patent system is broken, but this problem is very real.

note that I said "reduce" the monopoly, not eliminate it. Perhaps a limit on the markup or some sort of mandatory licensing scheme.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#79

Post by Retric »

gambiting wrote: post #73
brazzy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders to always take decisions that maximise profit over everything else [..] This is not "evil" - this is just how these companies work. Yes, it is very much evil. > The only way to combat this is to have a national health care system,that sets their own prices for drugs it buys from companies. No. All it takes is a different patent system that reduces the ( artificial, granted by…

If you opened your own company you would have to play by the same rules. Even if you wanted to sell your product cheaper, you would not be able to due to obligations to your shareholders,which have a legal binding. Is the system evil? Yes. Are you evil for following the rules? No. And as for the patents - how would you deal with a problem that after spending millions on research somebody could copy you and sell the s…

There is no legal requirement to maximize profits, just avoid doing anything stupid. Aka they can donate 5% of total annual profits to charity but not 50%. Drug companies often donate large quantities of medicine to 3rd world countries because it's vary cheap for them to do so and the management team is not evil.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#80

Post by miloshadzic »

electromagnetic wrote: post #66
coldtea wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the European countries had to had to pay for their own defense? The European countries pay big bucks for their own defense, thank you very much. And the US doesn't provide any defense at all. It merely uses its pressure to get the European countries to participate in its inane crusades and wars, from Korea to Iraq, which are for it's own interests. Plus, defense against what? The only thing that brings any…

I think when the UK paid 1/20th of the cost to R&D Trident 2, but got 1/5 of the orders, I'd say yeah that was pretty heavily subsidized by the US to have an ally country with stealth-nuclear capabilities. I also think you have absolutely no clue who international politics works by your blatant naivety. There's a lot more at stake than "access to oil". FYI Iraq showed oil reserves far superior to that of Saudi Arabia…

It sucked to be bombed for three months but now that I realize it made an improvement on your quality of life I feel much better!
Post reply on HN