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

Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#121

Post by n00b101 »

drewrv wrote: post #94
koolba wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shhh! Our whole racket is based on pricing our services on value while pricing our cost of goods on production inputs. It's not "fair" to let other industries do that right?

Pricing based on value provided to the customer makes a lot of sense for phones and web apps and cheetos. But how much do you value being alive? The "value" of a lifesaving drug is essentially unbounded, most people will pay anything to stay alive. That's one of the reasons healthcare is an edge case where the typical rules of capitalism don't work. So yes, it is unfair to have some industries price their products ba…

> But how much do you value being alive?

"the U.S. Office of Management and Budget puts the value of a human life in the range of $7 million to $9 million" [1]

[1] https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statis...

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#122

Post by refurb »

robotresearcher wrote: post #109
refurb wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just wasted money. Why would a drug company spend money on DTC advertising if it "wasted" money? Your comment suggests they'd be better off not doing it at all.

It's not the companies' money being wasted. It's patients' money. The nation would be better off without the ads. They create an artificially inflated demand.

They create an artificially inflated demand.

Doctors are the one's the write scripts, not drug companies. Are you saying doctors can't tell when a patient really needs a drug?

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#123

Post by koolba »

allenz wrote: post #119
koolba wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pricing based on value provided to the customer makes a lot of sense for phones and web apps and cheetos. > But how much do you value being alive? The "value" of a lifesaving drug is essentially unbounded, most people will pay anything to stay alive. That's one of the reasons healthcare is an edge case where the typical rules of capitalism don't work. > So yes, it is unfair to have some industries price their produ…

Everyone knows single-payer would be great, but practically speaking we don't have the votes :( I'd also propose a ban on drug marketing, which would reduce about half the costs.[1] I don't think that excluding monopoly drugs will work. First, the industry has made significant progress in the past two decades, so for most major diseases, the leading treatment was patented within the last 20 years. Second, drug compan…

I'm not saying there aren't any great advances. I'm saying it's an easy line to draw. That's vs picking and choosing what modern treatments are included.

The HepC treatment, while remarkably effective, would bankrupt most healthcare programs if they were forced to pay the retail price.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#124

Post by dethswatch »

afandian wrote: post #93
kamaal wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure getting to the final version of the pill pretty much has similar processes/iterations. Its really not like they arrive one morning to the office, mix a few chemicals in a test tube, file a patent and then start selling them.

My post was about manufacturing, not development. That's a whole other story.

>That's a whole other story.

it's not- it doesn't matter- they're all the costs of getting a product to market and sustaining it.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#125

Post by afpx »

StClaire wrote: post #7

It costs a quarter to manufacture each pill but the manufacturers charge several dollars for that pill. But they don't just price gouge. Drug companies need to file patents on their drug almost as soon as they sketch they come up with drug. From there they need at least 8 years to get through the FDAs approval process, so the manufacturers don't get nearly as much exclusive time with their IP as other industries. (Th…

It seems like you're knowledgeable on this subject. Could you explain the '8 year' approval process and what that means? I was recently reading some information that suggested that the FDA approval process is more like 8-10 months. I couldn't find the source that I read, but here is one similar:

https://www.pharmacist.com/article/trump-calls-fda-slow-and-...

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#126

Post by robotresearcher »

refurb wrote: post #122
robotresearcher wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the companies' money being wasted. It's patients' money. The nation would be better off without the ads. They create an artificially inflated demand.

They create an artificially inflated demand. Doctors are the one's the write scripts, not drug companies. Are you saying doctors can't tell when a patient really needs a drug?

There's a very big difference between push and pull. Why else would drug companies spend billions advertising to consumers?

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#127

Post by refurb »

robotresearcher wrote: post #126
refurb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They create an artificially inflated demand. Doctors are the one's the write scripts, not drug companies. Are you saying doctors can't tell when a patient really needs a drug?

There's a very big difference between push and pull. Why else would drug companies spend billions advertising to consumers?

Because there are plenty of patients who, with the right information, will go and talk to their doctor about their problem?

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#128

Post by e40 »

refurb wrote: post #97
e40 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have evidence that the FDA errs too conservatively and doesn't approve (or delays) drugs that would have turned out totally safe and helped people. I'd like to see evidence for that. My impression, from all that I've read on the subject, the truth is quite the opposite. The FDA's funding has steadily been cut over the years and the restrictions on drug trials have been more lax over time. For example, drug trials…

completely run by the companies themselves That's an odd criticism. Who would run the trial if not for the sponsor?

Here's a perfect example, from a slightly different domain, of why companies can't be trusted to do their own testing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13874668

Post reply on HN