91–100 of 422 posts
Ok, now do all other generics that are cheap to manufacture.
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.
Yeah it's really weird walking around NYC and seeing most of ads be from hospitals, colleges, pharma and lawyers.
edit: i'm getting downvoted. in case you weren't aware the subways in NY are plastered with HIMS and Roman health ads.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne5ndb/erectile-dysfuncti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insulin is a generic. No one is required to be compensated. Pharma had their chance to be reasonable. That time has passed. Not to say that we shouldn’t appropriate intellectual property when necessary (eminent domain or not respecting a patent, as has happened in India and Canada), it’s just not necessary in this case. That doesn’t make us Venezuela, that makes us pragmatic.
Generic Insulin is already cheap, around $100. It is the newer more effective versions that pharma companies have come up with recently that are more expensive. One can't argue that the pharma companies are bringing no value, and then demand their specific product because the generic isn't good enough. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/insulin-walmart-vial/
We reserve the right as a society to update the social contract at any time.
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.
He shouldn't. They're not all knowing super genius specialists who keep up with all the drugs and research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This suggests that something is very wrong with the market. The costs of development and production (even ignoring failures) are way below revenue, which means that return on capital should be very positive. Somehow most of the money is going into overhead. One might debate whether the overhead constitutes corruption, but it should be able to be reduced.
When it costs billions to develop a new drug due to onerous testing regulations, that's what happens. Ultimately returns in every industry tend towards zero. If we made it cheaper to develop new drugs it would extend the lifespan of the industry somewhat but not indefinitely. At some point diminishing returns take over and investment must go down.
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.
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…
My mother has diabetes and pays quite a bit for her insulin in California. I however am not sure government enforced price caps are the way to go. Today, people neglect to factor in the law of unintended consequences, and instead stand on a pedestal of moral superiority argument. What happens if price caps do reduce research. It’s no coincidence that the US has the best pharma companies and develops some of the most…
otherwise known as the lets-keep-the-status-quo-because-i-can-afford-it argument.
>It’s no coincidence that the US has the best pharma companies and develops some of the most effective drugs in the world
lol best pharma companies according to share values or according to how many people they help?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the manufacturers can decide to stop selling insulin in Illinois completely.
And as I said in another comment, let them make that decision... I would love to see them attempt to justify denying life saving medication in only one part of the country because money. Might just be the straw that would finally break their backs, and it's been too long coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can buy the formulation that was invented in 1923 for cheap. It's newer formulations that are expensive, and those are still protected by patents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_insulin > In the United Kingdom 1,000 iu costs the NHS £7.48, while in the United States this amount is about $134.00.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This suggests that something is very wrong with the market. The costs of development and production (even ignoring failures) are way below revenue, which means that return on capital should be very positive. Somehow most of the money is going into overhead. One might debate whether the overhead constitutes corruption, but it should be able to be reduced.
When it costs billions to develop a new drug due to onerous testing regulations, that's what happens. Ultimately returns in every industry tend towards zero. If we made it cheaper to develop new drugs it would extend the lifespan of the industry somewhat but not indefinitely. At some point diminishing returns take over and investment must go down.
The current regime in the USA didn't happen for nothing. It's well-known now that pharma companies had long been exploiting the file drawer effect and p-hacking to inflate the apparent safety and efficacy of their drugs in their FDA filings. The decision a couple decades ago to cut that off did dramatically reduce the rate at which drugs win approval, and that's a very good thing.
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.
Those ads are a small portion of pharma marketing budgets for prescription products. The vast majority goes to direct-to-doctor marketing.