A million-dollar drug • Hacker News Board

Re: A million-dollar drug

#11

Post by simion314 » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #9

This seems bizarre to me: Van Deventer says the company never considered lowering the price. "Why would we? Pricing shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a rational decision based on merits and value." If no one will pay $1 million, your revenue is $0. Assuming the drug costs much less than $1 million to make, surely any revenue number is better than $0?

What I think is happening is that the number of affected people is so low and the cost of producing this small number is very large and the company does not want a profit but a BIG profit.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#12

Post by rbultje » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

As sad as this story is, the silver lining is that patents expire, and 20 years from the patent filing point (probably 5-10 years from now?), patients will be able to be affordably cured. It sucks but is better than nothing.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#13

Post by worldsayshi » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #3

charlesism wrote: post #2

"Well, one pharma company has the patent, and we need to let them charge what they think the market will bear. Sorry LPLD carriers, you have to die now." Apparently, this is the best the world can manage in 2018.

I don't understand how anyone can think patents are a good idea.

There should at the very least be a law that states that a patented technology should be made available in reasonable ways to make the patent valid.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#14

Post by pierrebai » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

rbultje wrote: post #12

As sad as this story is, the silver lining is that patents expire, and 20 years from the patent filing point (probably 5-10 years from now?), patients will be able to be affordably cured. It sucks but is better than nothing.

The story is clear: the problem is not the patent itself but the cost of passing regulation hurdles and maintaining a plant producing the drug when there is suck low demand.

No one will invest in this even after the patent expires. The best the patients could hope is to group togethr to get some done produced?

Re: A million-dollar drug

#15

Post by worldsayshi » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #11

apsec112 wrote: post #9

This seems bizarre to me: Van Deventer says the company never considered lowering the price. "Why would we? Pricing shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a rational decision based on merits and value." If no one will pay $1 million, your revenue is $0. Assuming the drug costs much less than $1 million to make, surely any revenue number is better than $0?

What I think is happening is that the number of affected people is so low and the cost of producing this small number is very large and the company does not want a profit but a BIG profit.

If a company does not make use of a patent they should at least loose their right to it.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#16

Post by sneak » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #6

jmcgough wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a fan of it either, but how do we incentivize companies to research and create new drugs if they can't make back the huge cost of clinical trials?

What if governments paid for the clinical trials?

The government is the whole reason the clinical trials are required before patients can be treated with a working drug. They are the cause of the problem, not the solution.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#17

Post by cratermoon » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

charlesism wrote: post #2

"Well, one pharma company has the patent, and we need to let them charge what they think the market will bear. Sorry LPLD carriers, you have to die now." Apparently, this is the best the world can manage in 2018.

[flagged]

Re: A million-dollar drug

#18

Post by mabbo » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

latch wrote: post #7

jmcgough wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a fan of it either, but how do we incentivize companies to research and create new drugs if they can't make back the huge cost of clinical trials?

Did you read the article? The company that charged that absurd price acquired the patent, they had nothing to do with developing it.

While I don't disagree with your point, the company that bought the patent paid a lot of money for it from the company that developed it. Patents being exchangeable is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#19

Post by cratermoon » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #9

This seems bizarre to me: Van Deventer says the company never considered lowering the price. "Why would we? Pricing shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a rational decision based on merits and value." If no one will pay $1 million, your revenue is $0. Assuming the drug costs much less than $1 million to make, surely any revenue number is better than $0?

Somehow the Free Market Fairy is supposed to ensure everything is rational and efficient. https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/The-Free-Market-Fairy

Re: A million-dollar drug

#20

Post by lisper » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

charlesism wrote: post #2

"Well, one pharma company has the patent, and we need to let them charge what they think the market will bear. Sorry LPLD carriers, you have to die now." Apparently, this is the best the world can manage in 2018.

The last sentence of the article sums it up pretty well:

"If it's not commercially viable to produce a certain therapy, unfortunately, in our Western society, it does not happen."

And it is far from clear that this is not as it should be, because it's not just LPLD carriers about whom tear-terking stories can be told. $1M can be deployed in other ways that could potentially save more lives. Instead of "Sorry LPLD carriers, you have to die now", it might be, "Sorry, 100 poor African children without access to clean water, you have to continue to die of dysentery so we can save this one LPLD carrier."