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

The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

jhsph.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 537 posts

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#81

Post by mikeg8 »

The book The Healing of America by T.R. Reid, 2010 was a phenomenal look at this subject and the conclusion was this: we are the only developed nation whose government allows for-profit health insurance companies to exist with ZERO regulation to cap healthcare prices. Because of this, we spend 20% of every dollar on "administrative" costs compared to 3%-7% in the European and Asian countries. The goal for American healthcare companies is increasing shareholder value, not reducing costs. IMO healthcare is an obvious example of where a "free market" approach has failed and government oversight is critical.

https://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper...

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#82

Post by darawk »

airstrike wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…

Yep. This needs to be repeated more.

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#83

Post by bluetwo »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #49
bluetwo wrote: post #22

Like the article says, previous research has come to the same conclusion. We pay much more, and are ranked nowhere near the top for lifespan, childhood mortality, and other measures. Obamacare was a great first step. Define what basic healthcare is and form markets that encourage apples-to-apples comparison. Let the free market work. Sucks that one party used this as a weapon to wrestle power. Oh well. Not going to a…

> Let the free market work Respectfully, enough with this free market garbage. The healthcare industry is not a free market, it can never be. It's not possible for the consumer to be educated. Even if you put emergencies aside, when an unconscious person can't start price shopping emergency rooms, you still have regular office visits that are impossible to price shop. Ask yourself when the last time you asked your ph…

Free markets and regulations can co-exist. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

The most successful markets are a careful balance of well crafted regulations.

Healthcare in the US is not carefully balanced.

BTW, hospitals in the US begin publishing their pricing data online this year. By law.

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#84

Post by vasilipupkin »

nerdponx wrote: post #40
vasilipupkin wrote: post #34

I think it’s hard to compare these numbers across countries. For example, a richer country could choose to spend more on stuff that ultimately makes little difference in outcomes. For example, fewer people per hospital room or better hospital food or shorter wait times for a non threatening disease.

I'm not sure this holds up to scrutiny. Why don't other rich countries (e.g. Canada, which lets you pay for your own healthcare if you want) have this problem?

Canada has equivalent of Medicare for all. And Canada has at least some of these problems, for example longer wait times. These long wait times don’t ultimately affect average outcomes.

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#85

Post by ridgeguy »

airstrike wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…

>It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs...

And even in doing so, we're getting contaminated meds. See the article at Ars,[1] which is based on a recent study from Kaiser.[2]

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/scary-reality-meds-t...

[2] https://khn.org/news/how-tainted-drugs-reach-market-make-pat...

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#86

Post by theseadroid »

airstrike wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…

>I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to healthcare R&D.

Might not be a bad thing to try it out and see what the consequences can be.

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#87

Post by darawk »

cameronh90 wrote: post #44
airstrike wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…

It does appear to be the case that the US funds most pharma R&D due to Americans overpaying relative to the rest of the word. In some cases (China, India) this is due to weak IP protection, but in other cases (Canada, UK, Europe) it's more to do with our governments having a stronger negotiating position and setting hard limits on what they'll spend for a given benefit to patients. Some characterise this as freeloadi…

> Does this make us immoral for "freeloading", because we prefer putting our limited money into cost effective treatments?

It doesn't make you immoral, but it is important in understanding the tradeoffs of suggesting that the US switch to an NHS-style system.

> Also, is it not worth looking at why pharma R&D costs so much? The pharma industry seems to run at a very healthy profit margin compared to most other industries. Maybe the lack of market pressure is allowing the pharma industry to remain fatty? Obviously there's a fear that cutting US pharma revenue would hurt global medical R&D, but I don't see this as being a foregone conclusion. It could just as possibly be market failure and regulatory capture keeping pharma R&D expensive.

They may be doing well, but you may not be seeing all the little pharma companies that die trying. At the end of the day, investors are allocating capital where they think they can get returns. If you reduce the returns of pharma, you reduce the attractiveness of investing there.

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#88

Post by Scoundreller »

airstrike wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…

Sorta. It’s not like every other country waits for a generic to come out before paying for IP-protected drugs.

E.g. my health region in Canada will pay up to $50k or so per year of additional life provided.

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#89

Post by jonathankoren »

airstrike wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…

This is common PhRMA talking point that needs perspective. Large pharmaceutical companies spend twice the their readers h budget on marketing, a good percentage of now is that is spent on patient oriented marketing. (e.g. “Talk your doctor about Xyzzy!”)

If there would be a loss of revenue, any reduction in R & D costs lies purely with c-suite’s priorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...

Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins

#90

Post by anonymous5133 »

cameronh90 wrote: post #51
maxxxxx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see some hard numbers for this. Otherwise I believe this is just self-serving propaganda by drug manufacturers.

Especially when you consider most pharma companies seem to make around 15-30% profit after all costs/R&D... not many industries manage those kind of numbers.

You are looking at a biased data set is why. You are looking at the biggest drug manufacturers in the world which most likely own the most lucrative drugs. If you want a more unbiased sample then you need to look at the entire industry. For small drug companies most of the time their drugs do not get FDA approval or doesn't pass some regulatory approval and the whole company folds. For the bigger drug companies, the trend isn't to increase R&D spending but rather to simply buy up smaller companies that have patented drugs. This makes sense though because of eroom's law which states that even with advanced technology...creating new drugs or discovering new treatments is getting harder (more expensive) which means that the rate of return for drug R&D is declining.
Post reply on HN