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

Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#151

Post by fredsanford »

analog wrote: post #62
fredsanford wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a useless comment. Mathematics was arrived at by research which everyone shared when the vast majority of the research was happening...

I'm not sure why it's useless. If you're going to account for value provided by external sources then account for all sources, not just the ones that support your argument.

For what are you accounting? Most mathematics has been known about for 100+ years... IMO, This comment was a reason for you to hear yourself "talk" or alternatively for you to take a (weak) shot at the U.S.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#152

Post by geebee »

ofacup wrote: post #23
forrestthewoods wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that list 48.17% of all health care R&D spend is by US based companies. Sounds like the US is subsidizing the world to me.

keep on believing. you're the defender of freedoms after all

I believe that the thesis was that health care companies make heavy investments in R&D that are only profitable because of very high prices in the US, and that these innovations probably wouldn't be available at the lower cost in other other countries without this profit center.

That's just a thesis. It's an interesting one, I'd be interested in reading some discussion of it, especially insightful comments backed with data.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#153

Post by [deleted] »

snippyhollow wrote: post #6
nhashem wrote: post #4

This is basically the paradox of US healthcare innovation. Canada can tell its pharmaceutical companies, "yeah, that cool drug you just invented, we're not gonna pay you what you want for that." And what option does the pharmaceutical company have? Convince healthcare providers to charge retail prices to their patients as an out-of-pocket expense, or... reduce prices accordingly. Because healthcare payments are not f…

US firms are investing less in R&D relatively to their rank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Market_... than their French/UK (publicly-funded healthcare) counterparts. The US are not "subsidizing it for poor countries" more than other rich countries. The truth in the case you're making is not specific to healthcare and is that "research (private and public) of rich countries that can afford it" be…

[deleted]

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#154

Post by refurb »

visarga wrote: post #148
refurb wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because someone has to pay for the phase 3 clinical trials to actually prove that it's safe and that it works? That doesn't come cheap. If Biogen charged only the price of aspirin, they would never recoup their R&D costs, let alone make a profit.

Then maybe we should find a way to make trials cheaper. Why does it cost one billion dollars to bring a new drug to market? That could drastically limit the innovation.

You need to work with the FDA on that one, they are the ones that set the trial requirements.

It all comes down to risk-reward. Even though the FDA has very rigorous efficacy and safety standards, drugs still get through that kill people.

If you want to make drug approvals cheaper, then you have to be willing to put up with a higher risk of drugs getting through that shouldn't have.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#155

Post by spartango »

refurb wrote: post #135
spartango wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...it's likely to be tough to control costs and yet maintain R&D and innovation I'm running a biotech/healthcare startup, and this point is rather interesting for me. Most of these arguments against "crazy high" drug pricing in the US work to vilify the large pharma and biotech companies. I don't seek to defend them, but perhaps we can look at some of these conundrums through a startup's lens: Getting my product to…

Is your biotech startup in the Bay area? Would love to chat. Email in profile.

Happy to chat. We actually moved from the Bay Area to the Boston area recently.

I didn't see your email in your profile, but feel free to shoot me an email through my profile (anand at percept dot us)

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#156

Post by Retric »

refurb wrote: post #146
Retric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs tens of millions of dollars in large part because US healthcare is so expensive. The actual handing out of drugs is fairly low effort, it's everything else that makes trials so expensive.

It costs 10s of millions of dollars because that is how you prove a drug is safe. That isn't unique to the US. If you want to launch a new drug in the EU, it's not going to cost you any less.

the number of FDA-regulated investigators running trials abroad has increased by 15 percent each year, while the number of U.S.-based investigators declined 5.5 percent annually.

Several forces are pushing trials elsewhere, the researchers noted: cost (a trial at a top medical center in India may cost less than one-tenth per patient what it would cost at a second-tier U.S. center); faster approval times; and less red tape. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcar...

PS: Of note: In the US, sponsors may receive a 50% tax credit for certain clinical trials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Economics

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#159

Post by baldfat »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #13
snippyhollow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US firms are investing less in R&D relatively to their rank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Market_... than their French/UK (publicly-funded healthcare) counterparts. The US are not "subsidizing it for poor countries" more than other rich countries. The truth in the case you're making is not specific to healthcare and is that "research (private and public) of rich countries that can afford it" be…

From that list 48.17% of all health care R&D spend is by US based companies. Sounds like the US is subsidizing the world to me.

Only profitable drugs. Pediatric Cancer is not one of them so no new Chemotherapy in the US for over 20 years now and counting.

Also manufacturing is stupid also. Only one company makes Oxycodone (Pain Killer) there use to be two companies. Now the price has sky rocked and can be in short supply. So my son suffered for a few days due to not getting all the pills he needed. Great system.

Re: Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India

#160

Post by gte910h »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #121
nhashem wrote: post #4

This is basically the paradox of US healthcare innovation. Canada can tell its pharmaceutical companies, "yeah, that cool drug you just invented, we're not gonna pay you what you want for that." And what option does the pharmaceutical company have? Convince healthcare providers to charge retail prices to their patients as an out-of-pocket expense, or... reduce prices accordingly. Because healthcare payments are not f…

No, No, No. It is exactly opposite. It is the rest of the world subsidizing the US. The dollar is the world currency. It means that if any other country in the world wants to buy energy (i.e. oil or natural gas), or to trade internationally, it can do that only and only in the US dollars. About 90% of all dollars in circulation, circulate outside of the US borders. Think about it for a second. Your "genius" central b…

> Your "genius" central banker Ben Bernanke may print and print and print and who gets hit by inflation? China does

Inflation has been painfully low for years. Many have said it needs to be higher actually.

Post reply on HN