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

Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

kcl.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 189 posts

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#131

Post by SoftTalker »

radicalbyte wrote: post #109
tyre wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be in the insurance companies’ interests to band together to fund the research so they can save huge amounts of money in the long term but they do not do this. Insurance companies do not want cheaper care. In the US, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on care. So if you pay $1k/mo, they have to pay out at least $800/mo in care. (Not to you specifically, but averaged out across all subscribers.)…

I tried to explain to people in The Netherlands this exact problem when they were thinking about switching from single-player to a commercial insurance company model. Insurance companies always have an incentive to make healthcare services expensive. They have even more incentive to make healthcare expensive and do deals on the backside where their suppliers give them a kickback. Even better if said kickback comes vi…

> Insurance companies always have an incentive to make healthcare services expensive.

No, it's when their profits are capped by regulation that they have this incentive.

Insurance of other types absolutely seeks to reduce claims payouts.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#132

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

maxerickson wrote: post #112
atourgates wrote: post #95

I have a little insight here from working with ophthalmologists. When the article mentions "using a cancer drug to treat a leading cause of blindness" it's talking about using Bevacizumab (brand name Avastin) to treat macular degeneration. Avastin and Lucentis are molecularly the same drug. The difference is that Avastin isn't packaged to be injected into eyeballs, and Lucentis is. Also, Avastin costs about $50/dose,…

They have similar targeting but are not the same molecule.

My quick searching is showing that bevacizumab is the full antibody, but lucentis (ranibizumab) is just the fab. So, very similar, but indeed not the same thing. I would generally expect them to have the same effect, but biology is full of surprises.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#133

Post by doublepg23 »

tehjoker wrote: post #105
bluGill wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is not a capitalist society, it is a liberal society. Capitalism is a consequence of that but it isn't the reason.

This is completely backwards read Marx. Superstructure (culture, politics) flows from the economic base (there are some important exceptions, but that’s the dominant arrow).

> read Marx

read Popper

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#134

Post by chasd00 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #118
atourgates wrote: post #95

I have a little insight here from working with ophthalmologists. When the article mentions "using a cancer drug to treat a leading cause of blindness" it's talking about using Bevacizumab (brand name Avastin) to treat macular degeneration. Avastin and Lucentis are molecularly the same drug. The difference is that Avastin isn't packaged to be injected into eyeballs, and Lucentis is. Also, Avastin costs about $50/dose,…

How does a lowly pharmacy transform a drug that is not for eye injection into one that is?

They are not transforming the drug just the form. For example, elderly patients may have a hard time swallowing pills, for some medicines (not all) a compounding pharmacy can turn the pill into a lollipop. They can also turn things into like a cream or lotion.

/use to write code for a small independent pharmacy that had a couple compounding labs

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#135

Post by vkou »

maxerickson wrote: post #116
vkou wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, just work a well paying megacorp white collar job and you'll get slightly less fucked on healthcare. What about the other 90% of the country?

You could get angry about anything I say, I don't really care, you do you. I guess Medicare and Medicaid also don't have the incentives. Nor does Tri-care or the VA. My employer self insures as far as I know, and we are a few hundred people. Maybe 90% is a bit off?

I'm not angry about what you say, I'm angry at the parasites that have built this system, and the cynical bastards that work their ass off to perpetuate it.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#136

Post by parineum »

yndoendo wrote: post #124
parineum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real question is, what is the metric of ‘success’ - improved public health for the entire population at low cost, or bloated returns for pharmaceutical investors? This is a false dichotomy and this kind of zero sum thinking is exactly the root of so much misunderstanding of economics that's all the rage these days (and probably forever). Wealth is created by innovation, not transfered. "Rent seeking" is wealth…

I hate to break it to you. Private Equity does not care about the common good, only profits. They only bow to increase price and out side of medicine, reduce the qualifying of the product. Want common good, start creating disdain for the wealths in societies.

> Private Equity does not care about the common good, only profits.

Go back and read what I wrote. The point of capitalism is to align the profit motive of capitalists with the common good. It's not to give free reign to capitalists to do whatever they want at all costs.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#137

Post by parineum »

mrguyorama wrote: post #86
parineum wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all assumes that the government will do an equal or better job spending money than companies that rely on spending that money well to exist. What will actually happen is that the government department of repurposing drugs will be efficient once and then get their budget reduced and never be efficient again. Next time they'll make sure to spend every last cent and not worry about the over budget boondoggle that's…

>This all assumes that the government will do an equal or better job spending money than companies that rely on spending that money well to exist. We know they do because before the government took over the job, the nascent medicine industry would sell you literal poison. In fact, you can see today what an unregulated pharmaceutical industry looks like. It's the supplements aisle at your local supermarket. The place…

> We know they do because before the government took over the job, the nascent medicine industry would sell you literal poison.

I'm not arguing against regulation of private industry, I'm arguing against government competing with private industry. The government has unlimited money, very convoluted incentives and the legal right to use guns.

Private industry which has to make good choices or die is a much better environment for spending money wisely.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#138

Post by pvaldes »

Buttons840 wrote: post #118
atourgates wrote: post #95

I have a little insight here from working with ophthalmologists. When the article mentions "using a cancer drug to treat a leading cause of blindness" it's talking about using Bevacizumab (brand name Avastin) to treat macular degeneration. Avastin and Lucentis are molecularly the same drug. The difference is that Avastin isn't packaged to be injected into eyeballs, and Lucentis is. Also, Avastin costs about $50/dose,…

How does a lowly pharmacy transform a drug that is not for eye injection into one that is?

> How does a lowly pharmacy transform a drug that is not for eye injection into one that is?

New research probably discovered new applications for their product. Investors agree to diversify. Company developed a system to inject it. The system was approved by government agency at charge of this, and they give the green light to put it in the market.

This is totally normal. See Ozempic history.

The price of a treatment reflects also the collateral risks and probability to be sued for the physician and the company. The problem is not that it cost 1000 dollars, the real problem is that US government should be subsiding at least a part of this cost. Tax money is collected exactly for cases like this. The problem is that they are instead burning 14 millions to paint a pool in "American Idiot Green" dye and nobody says, this bill must be wrong. What they used to paint this? titanium?

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#139

Post by peterbecich »

atourgates wrote: post #95

I have a little insight here from working with ophthalmologists. When the article mentions "using a cancer drug to treat a leading cause of blindness" it's talking about using Bevacizumab (brand name Avastin) to treat macular degeneration. Avastin and Lucentis are molecularly the same drug. The difference is that Avastin isn't packaged to be injected into eyeballs, and Lucentis is. Also, Avastin costs about $50/dose,…

The higher manufacturer price of the eyeball-safe formulation is clearly justified, then, i.m.o. Also, is it the doctor's responsibility to assume risk to save the patient money?

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#140

Post by duskdozer »

peterbecich wrote: post #139
atourgates wrote: post #95

I have a little insight here from working with ophthalmologists. When the article mentions "using a cancer drug to treat a leading cause of blindness" it's talking about using Bevacizumab (brand name Avastin) to treat macular degeneration. Avastin and Lucentis are molecularly the same drug. The difference is that Avastin isn't packaged to be injected into eyeballs, and Lucentis is. Also, Avastin costs about $50/dose,…

The higher manufacturer price of the eyeball-safe formulation is clearly justified, then, i.m.o. Also, is it the doctor's responsibility to assume risk to save the patient money?

Assuming the compounding process is inherently more at risk of contamination. It also gets complicated when the extreme prices are involved: what risk of infection balances out with the risk that the patient will not be treated due to cost or will suffer whatever negative consequences due to bearing the cost? One in two? Probably not. One in a billion? Probably.

Considering that the doctor was able to test the batches and verify contamination, it seems like this is an important step that was skipped by the pharmacy.

Post reply on HN