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

Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#71

Post by pard68 »

pault wrote: post #56

It's really depressing knowing that no matter what policies other countries adopt to bring drug prices down it will never happen here in the US because there's too much money to be made from bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H donations from the pharmaceutical companies.

I agree, but it should be added that most other countries can have cheaper drugs because most drug R&D costs are eaten up by US drug makers and the US and state governments. Even if we cut out all the bad eggs rebranding old drugs at huge markup and/or selling generics are ridiculous prices, the US prices will always be higher because the US market is paying for 90%+ of all drug research.

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#72

Post by refurb »

Retric wrote: post #70
refurb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would the drugs be used? They still need another 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars before they are approved?

Presumably, if they continue to fund research, public entities would then pay to finish the process. This would mean either fewer drugs or more money for R&D. In the end when you change one part of the process you need to assume other parts of a related system will change in some manor.

The ones doing basic research today have zero capability to do the development part. So you'd be looking at spending a ton of money to try and develop the needed expertise to bring a molecule all the way to market. Would that also include commercialization - things like marketing?

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#73

Post by forinti »

hermitdev wrote: post #61
forinti wrote: post #48

This reminded me of an incident in which the Netherlands intercepted generic drugs en route to Brazil from India. https://www.kff.org/news-summary/india-brazil-launch-trade-d...

That's strange. Reading your comment, my first thought was WTF is the Dutch Navy doing intercepting shipments from India to Brazil. Then, I read your link and had another WTF moment: why is a shipment from India to Brazil travelling through the Netherlands and thus subject to their customs? India->Netherlands->Brazil seems like an incredibly inefficient trade route.

Central economies gain a lot from simply being in the centre. That's why there has been an effort to promote South-South relations.

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#74

Post by JKCalhoun »

Thriptic wrote: post #66
JKCalhoun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe drug "companies" should be government entities then and not for-profit at all.

That's a viable stance to take, but it's not without problems: 1. The time horizons involved don't work well with government. The US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon, and the highly delayed ROI means projects would always be first on the chopping block when it came to cost cutting. As a side note, currently we can't even agree to adequately fund basic research in the country, let alone drug develop…

You mention problems, and to be sure there would be problems, but we're also awash in the problems of the current system as well.

I am ignorant of these things so I have to ask if it is assumed that your assertions are common knowledge. For example: "the US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon".

If international trade is a larger sticking point then I would suggest an international consortium? Like a WHO entity that collects dues from member states and member states in turn benefit from drugs produced?

Just spit balling here to be sure.

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#75

Post by Vinnl »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #43
fouc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying the rights means licensing the rights of the patent, otherwise it would've said "Novartis bought the patent to Lutathera"

"Buying the rights means licensing the rights of the patent" I don't think journalistic language necessarily so accurate. I don't think we can say for sure what changed hands in the transaction, but it should not matter anyhow. If they bought everything, then the total lifetime value of the asset would hopefully have been baked into the price.

There's an interesting Dutch article from January about how the rights ended up with this company [1]. It doesn't say anything about patents, but it does say (my translation):

> The producer (AAA, later bought by Novartis) gets exclusive rights to sell the drug, for ten years in the EU, and for seven in the US. The only exception is hospital pharmacies preparing the drug for their own patients.

[1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2266712-hoe-nederlands-kankeronderzoe...

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#76

Post by ams6110 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #74
Thriptic wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a viable stance to take, but it's not without problems: 1. The time horizons involved don't work well with government. The US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon, and the highly delayed ROI means projects would always be first on the chopping block when it came to cost cutting. As a side note, currently we can't even agree to adequately fund basic research in the country, let alone drug develop…

You mention problems, and to be sure there would be problems, but we're also awash in the problems of the current system as well. I am ignorant of these things so I have to ask if it is assumed that your assertions are common knowledge. For example: "the US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon". If international trade is a larger sticking point then I would suggest an international consortium? Like a W…

Lately, with respect to the government, I think it's fair to shorten the statement to simply "the US can't get anything done."

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#77

Post by Pharmakon »

aaavl2821 wrote: post #68
JKCalhoun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe drug "companies" should be government entities then and not for-profit at all.

One could make a pretty good argument that a government funded drug research system would end up with more expensive drugs (in the form of higher taxes) than a for profit system Drugs, as a whole, aren't that expensive today compared to other healthcare. They make up 9.8% of US health care expenditure, which is pretty much middle of the pack compared to OECD countries. Hospitals, largely "non profit" (but sometimes m…

One could make a pretty good argument that a government funded drug research system would end up with more expensive drugs (in the form of higher taxes) than a for profit system.

That sounds like a pretty interesting argument, but I notice that you didn’t actually make it. The rest of your post is full of claims sans evidence, and a lot of numbers out of context. For example how many of those newly approved drugs are novel therapies vs. rejiggered stereochemistry to keep a patent or compete in an existing field? How many are significant improvements over existing therapies and not just potential profit centers?

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#78

Post by dnautics »

ams6110 wrote: post #76
JKCalhoun wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mention problems, and to be sure there would be problems, but we're also awash in the problems of the current system as well. I am ignorant of these things so I have to ask if it is assumed that your assertions are common knowledge. For example: "the US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon". If international trade is a larger sticking point then I would suggest an international consortium? Like a W…

Lately, with respect to the government, I think it's fair to shorten the statement to simply "the US can't get anything done."

And maybe that's not such a bad thing. There's a ton of space between "things companies" should do and "things government should do".

In the US, the policy agenda is (still) broadly defined by tribalism along polarizing issues (e.g. abortion). In other countries, it's slightly less bad but the phenomenon is similar. If less social goods were coupled to politics the world might be a better place, but it also might take a paradigm shift where we don't dualize social activity into two bins: stuff you do because you make money doing and stuff you get done by taking from your neighbors because they "owe it to everyone".

Re: Dutch join backlash at expensive drugs by making their own

#80

Post by BurningFrog »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #74
Thriptic wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a viable stance to take, but it's not without problems: 1. The time horizons involved don't work well with government. The US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon, and the highly delayed ROI means projects would always be first on the chopping block when it came to cost cutting. As a side note, currently we can't even agree to adequately fund basic research in the country, let alone drug develop…

You mention problems, and to be sure there would be problems, but we're also awash in the problems of the current system as well. I am ignorant of these things so I have to ask if it is assumed that your assertions are common knowledge. For example: "the US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon". If international trade is a larger sticking point then I would suggest an international consortium? Like a W…

In general, government policy does not plan beyond getting reelected for the next election.
Post reply on HN