5 ms·

I can't help but think these drug companies are playing a very dangerous game. The last thing they want is regulation, but of they keep this up that's what they

by steve19 11y ago

I can't help but think these drug companies are playing a very dangerous game. The last thing they want is regulation, but of they keep this up that's what they will get...

amelius 11y ago
Who cares about long-term issues anymore?
stingraycharles 11y ago
What I'm wondering about, however, as a European who never actually sees his own medical bills, how this will affect me or the country I live in. Will the powers that are in charge of buying medicine just suck it up and pay the bill? Will they use the power of the collective to get a better deal? How does this work?
- seren 11y ago
  There is usually a contract between the state and the company providing the drug. An example there : http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/france-strikes-big-hep-c-treatment-deal-gileads-sovaldi/2014-11-20 http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/france-strikes-big-hep-c-t... The thing is that is the state refuse to reimburse the drug it won't likely be prescribed/used, so the company has an incentive to sell at an acceptable price. You can also read some of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Society_and_cultur... to see how new drugs are approved or not, taking into account their cost and effectiveness.
- visarga 11y ago
  I think countries could first try to legalize cheap generics of that drug, as it already happens in India. But then an economic war would ensue. Each country would counter sanctions with other sanctions. Then negotiations would come, where a middle point would be sought between the trade blocks, similar to WTO, or patent portfolios and non-aggression pacts.
  - curiouscats 11y ago
    Yes and the factors are the costs of accepting the government granted monopoly pricing (free markets don't have government saying you can't sell this thing because some other people have gotten the government to say only they can sell it) and the costs of saying we don't accept the current patent system. The costs of fighting the existing copyright/patent cartel led by the USA is very high. Countries want to avoid this and if the cost is diverting a few percent of their GDP to the USA's drug companies they likely will do so. If however that diversion because too great they will have huge incentive to decide the cost is too high and we have to fight the USA's governments policies put in place at the behest of their drug companies. The costs will be enormous to the countries that fight, especially at first. The USA is enormously rich and can accept losses internally and use economic power to punish those defying it's dictates. If several rich countries decide to align with India (which seems to be by far the leading advocate for fighting the copyright/patent cartel) costs to the USA will also get step. At some point step enough that others force the government to stop using the rest of the USA's economic clout to benefit the drug companies. But I think it is very unlikely the other countries could sustain the losses long enough for the USA to cave. It is a big if, but if China grows well economically for the next 20 years it is much more likely India and China together could work together on this to bring together a large coalition. I don't think China and India would work together as strong allies but they could come together in this area if the USA continues to demand large percentage of countries GDP be diverted to the USA drug companies. All these types of things get complicated. It isn't as if the Drug companies don't understand this same path. They will obviously seek to use corruption in other countries as successfully as they have in the USA to get those governments to act in their interest for cash payments that are peanuts compared to the costs those governments will place on their citizens to benefit the drug companies. The payments to corrupt political parties doesn't only work in the USA, it works most everywhere. So don't count out the insane movement of wealth into drug companies coffers changing anytime soon. If you want to be practical buying stock in these companies will likely reward you well. That is what I have done. I can understand if you think it is repugnant to profit from corruption in the political system on such a massive scale (very little corruption ever impacts multiple percentage points of GDP but, as this does). That is likely a higher ethical decision, weighing my options I accept that "hit" to my karma. If I were given the authority to decide the policy I would make a decision that would harm my stocks but I am not given that option. And based on my estimates of likely future outcomes betting on the USA political parties staying very corrupt in relation to providing benefits to drug companies seems a very likely bet.
- scott_s 11y ago
  My understanding is that European countries do have regulation which prevents this kind of pricing, so the drugs are reasonably priced in your market. See point 3 in this piece on the price increase from the former hedge-fund guy: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/skyrocketing-prices-of-an-anti-parasitic-drug-the-facts/ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/skyro...
venomsnake 11y ago
Regulation is nasty. There are better and more humiliating ways to deal with that. Using eminent domain to seize patents and just the state manufacturing generics come to mind.
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  Violating property rights is more acceptable than regulation? I suspect that's not a widely held perspective. I, for one, really appreciate that things that belong to me continue to belong to me unless I sell them or don't pay my debts. I would accept fairly onerous regulation long before I would give up what I consider to be a fundamental benefit of not living in a failed state.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    > nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Eminent domain is constitutional. That is the whole idea - try to profiteer too much from your government granted monopoly, and we may seize it while paying you some price that the courts deem fair. Couple of cases like that and the industry will tone itself down. And no regulations.
    - dangerlibrary 11y ago
      Regulation is also constitutional.
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        True that. And it depends on the situation which approach is better. If all drugs companies are profiteers - then regulation is the better and more effective option. If only some bad actors among them are - why burden the rest with regulation.
    - raverbashing 11y ago
      Example: Antrax medication
refurb 11y ago
Great point! A Republican senator said the exact same thing: "You guys figure it out on your own or else we'll figure it out for you and trust me, you won't like our ideas."
- amelius 11y ago
  So this senator thinks that if the pharma companies figure it out, the government will like it? Shouldn't the ideas be coming from both sides in order to achieve a result that is satisfactory for both sides?
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    The point is that there's only so much Congress can do to ignore the public. Legislative capture only works with a docile/annoyed/disinterested public. The public can and will eviscerate the status quo when it's out for blood. A Congress forced to action by the public isn't particularly interested in appeasing pharma companies and neither are the other lobbies. If they isolate themselves, pharma companies are easily hung out to dry in order to preserve the overall status quo.
  - cyphunk 11y ago
    Off topic: can't find a way to contact in your profile. So... do you have more information in relation to this trail of thought: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870061 Not that you have to. However, I'd be interested to follow such a conversation.
    - amelius 11y ago
      I don't have more information, I guess. It was just a thought that popped into my mind when reading the article. If you still want to discuss it further, then please provide your contact details in your profile. I'll check it later.
      - cyphunk 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by steve19 11y ago

I can't help but think these drug companies are playing a very dangerous game. The last thing they want is regulation, but of they keep this up that's what they will get...

amelius 11y ago

Who cares about long-term issues anymore?

stingraycharles 11y ago

What I'm wondering about, however, as a European who never actually sees his own medical bills, how this will affect me or the country I live in. Will the powers that are in charge of buying medicine just suck it up and pay the bill? Will they use the power of the collective to get a better deal? How does this work?

seren 11y ago
There is usually a contract between the state and the company providing the drug. An example there : http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/france-strikes-big-hep-c-treatment-deal-gileads-sovaldi/2014-11-20 http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/france-strikes-big-hep-c-t... The thing is that is the state refuse to reimburse the drug it won't likely be prescribed/used, so the company has an incentive to sell at an acceptable price. You can also read some of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Society_and_cultur... to see how new drugs are approved or not, taking into account their cost and effectiveness.
visarga 11y ago
I think countries could first try to legalize cheap generics of that drug, as it already happens in India. But then an economic war would ensue. Each country would counter sanctions with other sanctions. Then negotiations would come, where a middle point would be sought between the trade blocks, similar to WTO, or patent portfolios and non-aggression pacts.
- curiouscats 11y ago
  Yes and the factors are the costs of accepting the government granted monopoly pricing (free markets don't have government saying you can't sell this thing because some other people have gotten the government to say only they can sell it) and the costs of saying we don't accept the current patent system. The costs of fighting the existing copyright/patent cartel led by the USA is very high. Countries want to avoid this and if the cost is diverting a few percent of their GDP to the USA's drug companies they likely will do so. If however that diversion because too great they will have huge incentive to decide the cost is too high and we have to fight the USA's governments policies put in place at the behest of their drug companies. The costs will be enormous to the countries that fight, especially at first. The USA is enormously rich and can accept losses internally and use economic power to punish those defying it's dictates. If several rich countries decide to align with India (which seems to be by far the leading advocate for fighting the copyright/patent cartel) costs to the USA will also get step. At some point step enough that others force the government to stop using the rest of the USA's economic clout to benefit the drug companies. But I think it is very unlikely the other countries could sustain the losses long enough for the USA to cave. It is a big if, but if China grows well economically for the next 20 years it is much more likely India and China together could work together on this to bring together a large coalition. I don't think China and India would work together as strong allies but they could come together in this area if the USA continues to demand large percentage of countries GDP be diverted to the USA drug companies. All these types of things get complicated. It isn't as if the Drug companies don't understand this same path. They will obviously seek to use corruption in other countries as successfully as they have in the USA to get those governments to act in their interest for cash payments that are peanuts compared to the costs those governments will place on their citizens to benefit the drug companies. The payments to corrupt political parties doesn't only work in the USA, it works most everywhere. So don't count out the insane movement of wealth into drug companies coffers changing anytime soon. If you want to be practical buying stock in these companies will likely reward you well. That is what I have done. I can understand if you think it is repugnant to profit from corruption in the political system on such a massive scale (very little corruption ever impacts multiple percentage points of GDP but, as this does). That is likely a higher ethical decision, weighing my options I accept that "hit" to my karma. If I were given the authority to decide the policy I would make a decision that would harm my stocks but I am not given that option. And based on my estimates of likely future outcomes betting on the USA political parties staying very corrupt in relation to providing benefits to drug companies seems a very likely bet.
scott_s 11y ago
My understanding is that European countries do have regulation which prevents this kind of pricing, so the drugs are reasonably priced in your market. See point 3 in this piece on the price increase from the former hedge-fund guy: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/skyrocketing-prices-of-an-anti-parasitic-drug-the-facts/ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/skyro...

venomsnake 11y ago

Regulation is nasty. There are better and more humiliating ways to deal with that. Using eminent domain to seize patents and just the state manufacturing generics come to mind.

dangerlibrary 11y ago
Violating property rights is more acceptable than regulation? I suspect that's not a widely held perspective. I, for one, really appreciate that things that belong to me continue to belong to me unless I sell them or don't pay my debts. I would accept fairly onerous regulation long before I would give up what I consider to be a fundamental benefit of not living in a failed state.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Eminent domain is constitutional. That is the whole idea - try to profiteer too much from your government granted monopoly, and we may seize it while paying you some price that the courts deem fair. Couple of cases like that and the industry will tone itself down. And no regulations.
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    Regulation is also constitutional.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      True that. And it depends on the situation which approach is better. If all drugs companies are profiteers - then regulation is the better and more effective option. If only some bad actors among them are - why burden the rest with regulation.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    Example: Antrax medication

refurb 11y ago

Great point! A Republican senator said the exact same thing: "You guys figure it out on your own or else we'll figure it out for you and trust me, you won't like our ideas."

amelius 11y ago
So this senator thinks that if the pharma companies figure it out, the government will like it? Shouldn't the ideas be coming from both sides in order to achieve a result that is satisfactory for both sides?
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  The point is that there's only so much Congress can do to ignore the public. Legislative capture only works with a docile/annoyed/disinterested public. The public can and will eviscerate the status quo when it's out for blood. A Congress forced to action by the public isn't particularly interested in appeasing pharma companies and neither are the other lobbies. If they isolate themselves, pharma companies are easily hung out to dry in order to preserve the overall status quo.
- cyphunk 11y ago
  Off topic: can't find a way to contact in your profile. So... do you have more information in relation to this trail of thought: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870061 Not that you have to. However, I'd be interested to follow such a conversation.
  - amelius 11y ago
    I don't have more information, I guess. It was just a thought that popped into my mind when reading the article. If you still want to discuss it further, then please provide your contact details in your profile. I'll check it later.
    - cyphunk 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]