Essentially planned obolescence applied to health. Rather unsettling.
Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
111–120 of 376 posts
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#112The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…
From a _capitalism_ point of view.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
You are jumping from one extreme to the other. Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. You can certainly keep a 'competitive' environment which is regulated with incentives. And I do agree healthcare needs this, and shouldn't live purely by the free market.
"Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen." Do you really think that we should ask the army to be profit oriented? What about the coast guard, Justice, Child protection service? Imagine all of this public institution comming to your house and start the conversation with "You have a nice family, it would be a shame if ..."
To expect results or effects is not the same as making profits.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
There's a huge mismatch between the interest of the investors (sell as much drugs as possible, for the highest possible price) and those of the consumers (be healthy without depending on external input). The pharma industry should be working hard on planning its own obsolescence. The same dynamic is at work in the food industry, which is responsible for the obesity epidemics. Capitalism as it is practiced right now h…
> The pharma industry should be working hard on planning its own obsolescence.
In an ideal word. But as you show in your mismatch "serving shareholder value" is prohibitive to this. So having then as (blue chip) for profit bizes is making sure they will NOT ever be planning they own obsolescence.
> The same dynamic is at work in the food industry, which is responsible for the obesity epidemics.
...and high amount of pesticide residues, and destruction of the ecosystems, and heavy pollution on surface waters, and extreme disdain for animal wellbeing, and... (cries)
> Capitalism as it is practiced right now has catastrophic flaws. We need to change the rules of the game, yes, and not necessarily seek profit and growth at all costs.
To my understanding it should never be the economic model "to govern all markets", but AN economic model allowed in some markets while carefully bounded by rules and ensuring (1) best outcomes for we the people and (2) a leveled playing field.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#115I think perhaps this article's headline is a bit click-baity and it riles up people. Understandable. I also felt this way. But then I read further. The report cited in the article suggests that companies should focus on treatments for things like common cancers, which has a renewable pool of patients. It also suggests diversifying the portfolio of cures. It does not say companies should not bother with curing Hep C l…
It does not say "companies should not bother with curing Hep C like illnesses since there's no money in it." Critical reading skills and leaving out strawmen/non-existent arguments like "there's no money in it" are required.
What exactly about my statement was a non-existent argument?
The title is "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" A non-sustainable business model cannot sustain a business by definition, therefore there is no money in it.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term... There is another one. Vaccines. Or any preventive medicines that does not actually require people to be sick. You just need to inject massive amount of fear of diseases (Statistics is your friend here) into the populace to create a nice, ever increasing demand of your produce...
Vaccines are one of medicine's great discoveries that free humanity. The only reason people aren't terrified of disease and think they can get away with lying about vaccination is that we've driven it into the corners. Unpreventable diseases are quite capable of creating their own fear, like the AIDS epidemic.
I am sorry, but what part of my comment are you responding to?
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
It's all multinational these days. Only 4/10 of the big players are in the US https://www.tharawat-magazine.com/facts/10-largest-pharmaceu... and that's quite logic if you remember that the European market is pretty much harmonized and twice as populated as the US.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are jumping from one extreme to the other. Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. You can certainly keep a 'competitive' environment which is regulated with incentives. And I do agree healthcare needs this, and shouldn't live purely by the free market.
You can have a competitive environment without a profit motive. You judge on results, not profitability.
OTOH, academia is supposed to be this type of meritocratic, results-driven ideal, and look where we are there. I suppose this a consequence of the measure that we use to "judge results". Do we start assigning healthcare R&D companies an "impact factor"? I know the journal impact factor is a bad example since it is criticized for being gameable, but I'm just using it to convey what I mean.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term... There is another one. Vaccines. Or any preventive medicines that does not actually require people to be sick. You just need to inject massive amount of fear of diseases (Statistics is your friend here) into the populace to create a nice, ever increasing demand of your produce...
Antivaccers here? I expected better, but I see you have been rightful down voted.
Which part of my comment is "Anti-vaccine"?
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#120The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
They are profitable on the bigger scale of a national economy. Sadly no one give a damn about that these days. In Germany we have the studies Betriebswirtschaft (business) and Volkswirtschaft (national economy) and the latter is loosing vital ground in politics.
It gets worse if you look to the UK where a of lot public services are handed to companies, for example the merger of all social benefits Universal Credit is run by companies and in a manner that can only be called unprofessional and anti-social.