5 ms·

I agree the non-negotiation was a major compromise. However it was, as I am told, basically required to get the ACA passed at all. The drug companies were repr

by lbhnact 10y ago

I agree the non-negotiation was a major compromise. However it was, as I am told, basically required to get the ACA passed at all. The drug companies were represented by Billy Tauzin [1] who, as I am told by insiders that worked directly with him, was able to get the Pharmacos to not fight the ACA. Their support was not just critical, but a necessary factor in getting anything done. It was a trade-off, whether or not is was worth it is hard to know. As for your own care, I am sorry to hear about the lack of insurance. Some states (for often historical market reasons) make it hard for providers to sell or even give medications to their patients, which is also part of this problem. If you look around, there are occasionally 'Direct Primary Care' providers or community clinics that stock generics for their own patients and will provide them at no or low-cost. Many organizations and states have processes for the uninsured to obtain medications at low cost as well. If you find a clinic with PCPs who are mission-driven, and they are out there, they perhaps can help you enroll. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin

hga 10y ago
It was a trade-off, whether or not is was worth it is hard to know. It depends on whether you care about there being any new drugs developed in the future or not. ck2 is having trouble paying his current drug costs and would seem to be in one camp. I can pay mine---granted, they've all gone generic---but with a barely, maybe, kinda treatable genetic in my case but generally common condition for which nobody has come up with a cure including an effective drug, I'm in another camp (heck, if new drug discovery had been shut down before the mid-90s or so, I might well be dead, or suffering enough you wouldn't be blessed with my contributions to HN). And as more and more people die due to antibiotic resistance infections I suspect more people will shift into mine. Ditto importing from Canada, with their small market the easiest thing for drug companies to do is simply cease exporting brand name drugs to them so they don't suffer from re-importation and still have something of a new drug development budget.
- Retric 10y ago
  New drug development is mostly paid for by other party's. The major drug company's spend money on acquisitions, advertising, and minor tweaks to get around patents. ex: Viagra> Uprima and Cialis Sure, Pfizer for example does spend billions on R&D. But, far more of this is Development than Research. They also call a lot of dubious spending R&D.
  - hga 10y ago
    Then I guess it's just my imagination that in the same decade Pfizer brought Viagra to market, AstraZeneca developed and brought to market the drug that just barely manages to keep me functional. Try again. ADDED: Side note, apomorphine AKA Uprima is so old a drug Wikipedia tells us Agatha Christie featured it in a story in 1940.
    - Retric 10y ago
      First Viagra was actually an accident. Initial human trials failed, but there was a useful side effect. Second, if we want to spend money on research then we can just fund that directly. Which we do. Subsidizing company's that spend more on advertising than research is stupid. US government, Foundations, University's, Pharm all play a roll, but Parma's role in novel cures is actually the smallest. Granted, still vital as the others rarely pay for clinical trials.
      - refurb 10y ago
        Your comment on Viagra is entirely wrong. It was first tested in pulmonary hypertension and they noticed the ED effect. It was approved for both conditions. Second, the only reason why a pharma company spends on advertising is because they get a return on it. That is, they spend $10M and get $10M + X in sales from it. Why else would you spend money? And finally, most drugs are discovered by private companies, not by the gov't. It's about a 2/3rd private company and 1/3rd gov't split.
        Retric 10y ago
        Effective != successful. It's considered an Off Label use for very good reasons. Second, people take a lot of unnecessary drugs with bad side effects. Sure, that's profitable for drug companies, but so is flat out robbing people. Considering how useless many widely prescribed drugs are robbing people may actually be better for society. Finally, your flat out wrong on the drug numbers. Drug discovery is very different from bringing drugs to market. We get ~50 drugs per year, but we discover vastly more than that.

by lbhnact 10y ago

hga 10y ago

It was a trade-off, whether or not is was worth it is hard to know. It depends on whether you care about there being any new drugs developed in the future or not. ck2 is having trouble paying his current drug costs and would seem to be in one camp. I can pay mine---granted, they've all gone generic---but with a barely, maybe, kinda treatable genetic in my case but generally common condition for which nobody has come up with a cure including an effective drug, I'm in another camp (heck, if new drug discovery had been shut down before the mid-90s or so, I might well be dead, or suffering enough you wouldn't be blessed with my contributions to HN). And as more and more people die due to antibiotic resistance infections I suspect more people will shift into mine. Ditto importing from Canada, with their small market the easiest thing for drug companies to do is simply cease exporting brand name drugs to them so they don't suffer from re-importation and still have something of a new drug development budget.

Retric 10y ago
New drug development is mostly paid for by other party's. The major drug company's spend money on acquisitions, advertising, and minor tweaks to get around patents. ex: Viagra> Uprima and Cialis Sure, Pfizer for example does spend billions on R&D. But, far more of this is Development than Research. They also call a lot of dubious spending R&D.
- hga 10y ago
  Then I guess it's just my imagination that in the same decade Pfizer brought Viagra to market, AstraZeneca developed and brought to market the drug that just barely manages to keep me functional. Try again. ADDED: Side note, apomorphine AKA Uprima is so old a drug Wikipedia tells us Agatha Christie featured it in a story in 1940.
  - Retric 10y ago
    First Viagra was actually an accident. Initial human trials failed, but there was a useful side effect. Second, if we want to spend money on research then we can just fund that directly. Which we do. Subsidizing company's that spend more on advertising than research is stupid. US government, Foundations, University's, Pharm all play a roll, but Parma's role in novel cures is actually the smallest. Granted, still vital as the others rarely pay for clinical trials.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Your comment on Viagra is entirely wrong. It was first tested in pulmonary hypertension and they noticed the ED effect. It was approved for both conditions. Second, the only reason why a pharma company spends on advertising is because they get a return on it. That is, they spend $10M and get $10M + X in sales from it. Why else would you spend money? And finally, most drugs are discovered by private companies, not by the gov't. It's about a 2/3rd private company and 1/3rd gov't split.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Effective != successful. It's considered an Off Label use for very good reasons. Second, people take a lot of unnecessary drugs with bad side effects. Sure, that's profitable for drug companies, but so is flat out robbing people. Considering how useless many widely prescribed drugs are robbing people may actually be better for society. Finally, your flat out wrong on the drug numbers. Drug discovery is very different from bringing drugs to market. We get ~50 drugs per year, but we discover vastly more than that.