Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#2I wonder how the results would change if they had considered countries like Brazil, which offers a cocktail of ~17 drugs for free for everyone HIV positive since 1996 (when patents were fought in the supreme court IIRC). Many americans and europeans (also japanese) come here every year to get some of these medicines for a fraction of what they would cost back home.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#3I wonder how the results would change if they had considered countries like Brazil, which offers a cocktail of ~17 drugs for free for everyone HIV positive since 1996 (when patents were fought in the supreme court IIRC). Many americans and europeans (also japanese) come here every year to get some of these medicines for a fraction of what they would cost back home.
I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#4I wonder how the results would change if they had considered countries like Brazil, which offers a cocktail of ~17 drugs for free for everyone HIV positive since 1996 (when patents were fought in the supreme court IIRC). Many americans and europeans (also japanese) come here every year to get some of these medicines for a fraction of what they would cost back home.
I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.
It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n...
With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world.
Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research.
No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.
It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n... With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world. Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research. No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.
This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#6I wonder how the results would change if they had considered countries like Brazil, which offers a cocktail of ~17 drugs for free for everyone HIV positive since 1996 (when patents were fought in the supreme court IIRC). Many americans and europeans (also japanese) come here every year to get some of these medicines for a fraction of what they would cost back home.
I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.
Society would collectively decide to fund drug development because it betters all of humanity. There are ways to innovate without fucking over everyone for the sake of profit, you know.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.
It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n... With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world. Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research. No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.
> CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development.
the estimate includes money that investors could have made if they invested elsewhere?
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n... With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world. Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research. No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.
This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.
It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come.
The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company.
Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not).
>In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for
>an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your
>medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it. Only 5 in 5,000
>drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human
>testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is
>approved.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n... With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world. Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research. No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.
> CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development. the estimate includes money that investors could have made if they invested elsewhere?
Opportunity costs are real. Promising hypotheses are abundant and cheap. Exploring each with grueling, resource-intense, high-standard science is expensive.
You have to make hard choices.
Re: Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.
Society would collectively decide to fund drug development because it betters all of humanity. There are ways to innovate without fucking over everyone for the sake of profit, you know.
Then you have to solve a very difficult resource allocation problem. Capitalism solved it with a distributed scalable universal reward mechanism (profit). At least in European societies drug discovery is then still financed by society because there exists universal healthcare, which is subsidized by the state for underprivileged people.