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

Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#11

Post by iamleppert »

So why haven't those other countries done so?

The sad reality is that capitalism provides the required incentive to motivate smart, talented people who can actually innovate. There are of course exceptions, many people are doing this work because it is their passion, and would likely continue doing it even if they weren't paid well, but such people are rare; most people simply want to do a job and receive the maximum compensation they can get -- based upon free market dynamics and relative rarity of someone with their experience, ability, and knowledge.

Nothing in life is free, asshole.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#12

Post by aantix »

throwaway18917 wrote: post #6
arcticfox wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.

Society would collectively decide to fund drug development because it betters all of humanity. There are ways to innovate without fucking over everyone for the sake of profit, you know.

Profitability funds the next generation of drugs. It pays the salaries of researchers and clinicians and funds human trials.

E.g. A drug like Kadcyla that gives six months to late stage breast cancer patients. 20 years ago that option wasn't available but now it is an option, in part, due to profits of other drugs.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#13

Post by refurb »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #5
aantix wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n... With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world. Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research. No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.

This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

That's incorrect and based on an analysis that lumps all sales and general expenses into "marketing".

Also, companies don't market unless it brings in more revenue than it costs (positive ROI). Thus, marketing pays for itself. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#15

Post by bryondowd »

iamleppert wrote: post #11

So why haven't those other countries done so? The sad reality is that capitalism provides the required incentive to motivate smart, talented people who can actually innovate. There are of course exceptions, many people are doing this work because it is their passion, and would likely continue doing it even if they weren't paid well, but such people are rare; most people simply want to do a job and receive the maximum…

I'd say few people try to maximize compensation. Rather, most people prioritize on a number of factors including not just compensation, but enjoyment/tolerance of the work. And compensation generally becomes less of a priority as it increases, as there's less need for it.

In other words, it's not clear that you need to maximize profits to get a respectable amount of human resources into a field. Capitalism is great at many things, but there's definitely cases where common cause makes other solutions more viable within a limited scope.

Also, in response to why other countries aren't funding drug development, it could be as simple as the fact that they don't need to, since the US is doing it for them. Similar to the effect of our outsized military spending allowing many allied countries to spend less on their own defense.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#16

Post by Joeri »

iamleppert wrote: post #11

So why haven't those other countries done so? The sad reality is that capitalism provides the required incentive to motivate smart, talented people who can actually innovate. There are of course exceptions, many people are doing this work because it is their passion, and would likely continue doing it even if they weren't paid well, but such people are rare; most people simply want to do a job and receive the maximum…

Ah, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with the closing sentence.

Most people aren't gung ho compensation maximizers, otherwise nobody would work in education or government. Free-market capitalism has so far been the most successful economic model, but that doesn't mean it's the right approach for everything. You might be surprised how many drugs are developed by government research institutes.

Besides, why shouldn't human rights, like healthcare, be free? Well, ok, taxpayer-funded is not quite the same as free, but the idea still has merit. Can we really say we deserve this planet if we don't even take care of our own? Desperately wanting to fit everything into a free market model has so far produced more problems than it solved.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#17

Post by marcosdumay »

aantix wrote: post #8
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come. The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company. Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not). >In the United States, it takes an average of 12…

Educating doctors is not a job for the pharma companies.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#18

Post by favorited »

aantix wrote: post #8
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come. The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company. Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not). >In the United States, it takes an average of 12…

For the record, the US is one of the only Western countries where drug companies are allowed to market directly to consumers.

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#19

Post by pulse7 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #17
aantix wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come. The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company. Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not). >In the United States, it takes an average of 12…

Educating doctors is not a job for the pharma companies.

The funny part is: this "education" often happens on turist attractive locations like remote islands where doctors can come with their families... and pharma companies pay the costs... sad reality...

Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013

#20

Post by dikdik »

aantix wrote: post #8
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come. The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company. Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not). >In the United States, it takes an average of 12…

No, doctors do not have "too much information to consume" especially in relation to new drugs on the market.

In the highly specialized field of medicine, you do not need to know about every drug that comes out every year. You only need to know about the handful of drugs that are important to your specialty. Further physicians should be reading medical literature regarding the efficacy of these new drugs and should not be getting their education from a pharmacy rep with a bachelors in communication.

This idea that we wouldn't have any new drugs if American's didn't pay exorbitant fees for pharamaceuticals is completely false. It's a rationalization that we Americans have come up with to feel better about being taken to the cleaners by pharma companies.

I had the displeasure of working for a company that was bought out by a multi-national pharma. The crap they pulled disgusted me to the point that I quit without another job lined up. If you think contributing to a company that improves click rates is pointless, try contributing to a company that uses its leverage to eviscerate its customers on their deathbeds. It's infuriarating.

Post reply on HN