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

Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

nbc15.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 422 posts

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#241

Post by davidsawyer »

ptah wrote: post #42
Someone1234 wrote: post #8

I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…

> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned

I agree. The US and New Zealand are the only countries in the world that allow full-on pharma ads.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#242

Post by mikestew »

monadic2 wrote: post #181
refurb wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDA has done research into it and it clearly provides some value. Other highlights of the surveys include: Most physicians agreed that because their patient saw a DTC ad, he or she asked thoughtful questions during the visit. About the same percentage of physicians thought the ad made their patients more aware of possible treatments. Many physicians thought that DTC ads made their patients more involved in their heal…

I would imagine you’d need to draw a correlation between advertisements and quality of care and successful treatment rate; awareness and involvement aren’t positive or negative per se. Secondly, I see too many damn branded pens in my doctor’s office to be under the illusion that the marketing is only directed at the patients. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been prescribed medication just to have it swapped ou…

Secondly, I see too many damn branded pens in my doctor’s office to be under the illusion that the marketing is only directed at the patients.

I can assure you that drug reps didn't bring in catered lunch to my ex-wife's GP office for the benefit of better informing patients about their choices. We got divorced 30 years ago, but I'd bet money I've still got a sticky note pad lying around the house somewhere with a pharma company's name on it.

There's plenty of drug marketing going on that will never come under the gaze of a patient.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#243

Post by jonlucc »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #229
Someone1234 wrote: post #8

I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…

I'm fine with purely public research funding, but if we need extra incentives for "last mile" applied research, drug bounties are wholely better for the public and pharmaceutical industry alike.

Disclaimer: I work in big pharma as a biologist and nobody asks me anything about pricing or broad strategy

I don't hate the idea of bounties, but someone has to decide what bounties to offer, and the current system for deciding that is whether money can be made in that area. It's not perfect, but at least broadly it means that there is an incentive for treatments for conditions that affect a lot of people and ones with a high cost of disease without treatment.

The thing I could see easily being missed by bounties (or maybe worse, being subject to being lobbied by pharma companies with a drug in the chamber) is drugs that start for one indication, but pivot or expand to another, and drugs that are second or third in class. There is undoubtedly some value to a second in class drug that is more efficacious and safer, and line extensions are also helpful for expanding the use of a drug in market.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#244

Post by Baeocystin »

ollie87 wrote: post #76
ptah wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned

It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. If I asked my GP for a specific medication they'd look at me like an alien.

Is it really such an odd question? Putting advertising outside, it seems to me that it would be a common occurrence that someone dealing with problem X has probably spoken to other people with the same issue, and what the group knows works well would be spread around. In my case, I'm asthmatic, and I know very well what works best for me, simply because I've had decades of experience figuring it out. When I've gone to see a new doctor, I've been specific in my medicine requests, and it has been received well enough.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#245

Post by joyeuse6701 »

fortran77 wrote: post #114
ptah wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned

When television cigarette advertising was banned (in the US) profits and stock prices went up! [1] Since all the cigarette companies were in an even playing field, they saved a lot of money by not having to advertise. I think it may be a win-win if the U.S. prohibited television medical advertising. [1] https://economicdynamics.org/meetpapers/2011/paper_868.pdf

Another aspect of the story is the support by tobacco companies for this because it removed the obligation to air anti-tobacco messaging by law[1].

[1]https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#246

Post by joey_bob »

Someone1234 wrote: post #8

I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…

Wait, so government funding supports the drug through the whole discovery and FDA validation process then just hands it off to the pharma companies? That seems broken

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#247

Post by justinzollars »

I think this is a naive approach. We could price cap anything. Homes in San Francisco for example. The result will be rationing and shortages. It won't solve the fundamental problem. They key to bringing prices down is to remove barriers of entry. We need to flood the market with more insulin, or with my SF housing example flood the market with many more houses.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#248

Post by tryptophan »

michael_j_ward wrote: post #173
rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, insulin is a great example of why your premise is false: Insulin replacement was developed a century ago, being first discovered by a government entity (U of Toronto). Private companies commercialized the treatments in the 1940s and 1950s, developing long acting forms that could be administered in a single injection per day. Since then, pharmaceutical companies have made continuous improvements with fewer…

In addition to reducing regulatory barriers that prevent generic producers, why is no one suggesting altering the pharmaceutical intellectual property system? Twenty years to hold monopoly production rights is an obscene amount of time. Yes, reducing that twenty to say five will reduce capital investments in drug research, but it will also alter the structure of those investments. Investing in improvements at the mar…

Lowering drug patent duration would explode prices upwards. Its much easier to recover 1B investment over 20 years than 5.

And this conspiracy that pharma is intentionally not funding cures to make more money is ridiculous. That would imply they know how to cure things, but just don't want to...

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#249

Post by amyjess »

umvi wrote: post #137
ollie87 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. If I asked my GP for a specific medication they'd look at me like an alien.

On the other hand, I hate the general attitude of "don't question your doctor or do your own medical research; the doctor knows what's best" Doctors are mortals too and can only have so much time to draw on info they crammed X years ago. Patients can quickly become more expert than GPs with regards to their own diseases, especially if they have months to research it. Anecdotal example - my sister had a wierd skin con…

I'm a trans woman. It's widely acknowledged in the trans community that most of us have to teach our doctors what meds to prescribe, what starting doses are common, and how to interpret lab results to determine how to titrate the dosage. Most of us have read the Encdocrine Society's clinical guidelines for HRT cover to cover, because we have to be the experts. And half the time, it turns into a fight. At one point, I had to print out relevant sections from the Endocrine Society's guidelines and use a highlighter on key parts just to demonstrate that my dose needs to be upped, to a level that's still regarded as safe, because my levels were way too low. I was so happy when I switched to a better doctor a couple of years later.

And a lot of us end up ordering our meds from gray-market online pharmacies anyway and paying for our own blood tests (usually via Private MD Labs).

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#250

Post by nradov »

mrnobody_67 wrote: post #220
nradov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The testing regulations are not onerous. They are necessary to ensure that new medications are both safe and effective. I often see vague complaints about the regulations, but no one seems to have specific suggestions about how to lower drug development costs while still protecting patients.

Actually they are ineffective. Tons of drugs have been approved, only to be later pulled off the shelves. So despite the massive cost, delays, etc. the process has failed at least 35 (!) times: https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/fda-approved-prescripti...

Actually they are effective, and have been made even more effective after the recent drug recalls. If the regulations were looser then there would have been even more recalls. Therefore your argument is illogical.
Post reply on HN