6 ms·

Don't shut down the pharmacy of the developing world

83 points by hargup 10y ago

fit2rule 10y ago
In fact, lets shut down pharma-for-profit, at least in the developed world.
benevol 10y ago
Access to drugs should be available to everybody, on a need basis, not wealth basis. Just like health care in general (or even infrastructure), pharma research should be financed by taxes.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  So pharma research can be yet another political weapon to control or wield against the other side? No thanks. While the for-profit system has some flaws, at least their motivations are relatively straightforward and when there's a reason to change their policies by discounting or even giving things away free, they can choose to. If the government tried to do that, it would turn into a multi-month (year?) debate before anything would be done.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >So pharma research can be yet another political weapon to control or wield against the other side? No thanks. I'll take the mythical use of pharma research as a political weapon over the all too real Martin Shkreli phenomenon.
    - bmer 10y ago
      Well put. "Evil tax" arguments are especially bizarre to me as a Canadian, where our taxes do so much for us (have a look at our healthcare), and aren't used as a political weapon. There are often pushes to privatize, regardless. Not all political setups devolve into the chaos experienced by the US.
      - peyton 10y ago
        To be fair, Canada plays hardball with foreign medical IP. The "evil tax" may be passed on to foreigners instead. The US could be unique in that compulsory licensing laws and aggressive patent invalidation don't work--there aren't many desirable foreign patents to invalidate or inventions to compel licensure.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
  I think we should have both private and government financed pharma research. The approval process should be the same for both. If private pharma discovers a drug that is approved - then they should be able to sell it in such a way as to maximize their profits. If government pharma discovers a drug that is approved - then they should be able to provide it at cost. This way we don't have to worry about new drug discovery drying up because of lack of profits, while at the same time we have a way to allow government funding for actual drugs that could be provided at low cost. I think this private-public competition will provide both innovation and low prices in the long term.
  - belorn 10y ago
    We already have private and government financed pharma research. US alone spends around $26.4 billion each year, which do not include university founded research (that goes under education) and the other smaller incentive systems for pharma research by organizations such as FDA (which is a third recipient of government founds). Regardless, no drugs is provided at cost. Government founded research is also the primary ground work for which private pharma use, and private pharma would unlikely survive today without that core research being done for free. But maybe government could be more return-on-investment friendly for the citizens who pay taxes and re-route some of that research founds into actually developing the end user drugs. At the same time they could create legal barriers for private pharma from using any tax funded pharma research. That would create some loud screams from the pharma lobby, and we would finally be able to say how valuable the patent supported pharma industry really is. I doubt however we will ever see such day, and patent supported pharma will continue to claim the glory while tax payers silently pays double for medicine. First through taxes and then a second time through the expensive drug prices in the pharmacy.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
      My thought was for government financed end user drug development. Think something like Pharma now but financed by taxes. This entity would compete on a level playing field with big Pharma. The basic science research would stay the same. Then both government end user drug research and private Pharma would compete on turning basic science into actual approved drugs.
- evanpw 10y ago
  Why wouldn't funding pharmaceutical research completely from taxes just lead to it being just as chronically underfunded as infrastructure currently is? And just as earmark-driven?
  - benevol 10y ago
    Because you naturally apply the American perspective only.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
EGreg 10y ago
Going forward, open source would work much better for drugs than for-profit models. It does the long tail better. Bill Gates famously said that baldness is treated before malaria because of the aggregate economic power of the "customers". Similarly, Microsoft etc release Windows for x86 while Linux even runs on Toasters. Because without patents, anyone in the world can build on the work of others. Like they do in, you know, science. If they help the third world it will be by standing on the shoulders of giants, legally: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93
- stephanheijl 10y ago
  While I agree with the premise that open source could, in theory, serve the long tail better, I think the barrier to entry of pharmacological research is far higher than that of software development. It should be noted that this is not without reason. Controlled, double-blind studies are necessary for development of medicine and they are hard to do without a substantial amount of funds. This barrier to entry may decrease as biological models become cheaper and more accessible, but even as a hopeful bioinformatician, I am skeptical of this happening in the near term (10-15 years).
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Governments have lots of money. Even if a government research department was 20% less effective than an equivalent private sector research department (which I strongly doubt; they're probably equivalent), it would still be more cost effective. Pharma marketing budgets are titanic and that's an epic waste of money.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      I decided to look into this. I pulled the financials for Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Their research and development (R&D) spending, while significantly less than their Selling, General, and Administrative (SGA) spending, it is still comparable. Considering SGA includes a lot more than just advertising I would wager that their actual ad budgets (at least for Merck and AstraZeneca) are less than their R&D budgets. Pfizer: $7,690 million R&D, $14,809 million SGA Merck: $6,704 million R&D, $10,313 million SGA AstraZeneca: $5,997 million R&D, $9,951 million SGA
forrestthewoods 10y ago
That's a lot of shoulds. I hear government spending on research as part of the defense department is super effective.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  The irony of someone being sarcastic about DoD research while communicating on a medium that was a direct result of DoD research is pretty funny :)
  - whorleater 10y ago
    The internet being a result of DoD research doesn't make them impervious to criticism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 10y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12189499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12189499 and marked it non sequitur.
  - forrestthewoods 10y ago
    What? That's absurd. It's not a non-sequitur. It's a statement that massive government research projects are exceptionally overpriced and inefficient. Maybe a sarcastic comment isn't the most effective means of communication. But given the quality of the root comment I felt it appropriate. Here. Let me paste a blurb by Richard Posner from An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. Copyright law is not the same as patent law, of course. But the balance being sought is much the same. "A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."
srtjstjsj 10y ago
homepage is social media fauxtrage garbage, but there is some real information at http://handsoff.msf.org/generics-under-attack#anchor http://handsoff.msf.org/generics-under-attack#anchor

83 points by hargup 10y ago

In fact, lets shut down pharma-for-profit, at least in the developed world.

Access to drugs should be available to everybody, on a need basis, not wealth basis. Just like health care in general (or even infrastructure), pharma research should be financed by taxes.

caseysoftware 10y ago
So pharma research can be yet another political weapon to control or wield against the other side? No thanks. While the for-profit system has some flaws, at least their motivations are relatively straightforward and when there's a reason to change their policies by discounting or even giving things away free, they can choose to. If the government tried to do that, it would turn into a multi-month (year?) debate before anything would be done.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >So pharma research can be yet another political weapon to control or wield against the other side? No thanks. I'll take the mythical use of pharma research as a political weapon over the all too real Martin Shkreli phenomenon.
  - bmer 10y ago
    Well put. "Evil tax" arguments are especially bizarre to me as a Canadian, where our taxes do so much for us (have a look at our healthcare), and aren't used as a political weapon. There are often pushes to privatize, regardless. Not all political setups devolve into the chaos experienced by the US.
    - peyton 10y ago
      To be fair, Canada plays hardball with foreign medical IP. The "evil tax" may be passed on to foreigners instead. The US could be unique in that compulsory licensing laws and aggressive patent invalidation don't work--there aren't many desirable foreign patents to invalidate or inventions to compel licensure.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
I think we should have both private and government financed pharma research. The approval process should be the same for both. If private pharma discovers a drug that is approved - then they should be able to sell it in such a way as to maximize their profits. If government pharma discovers a drug that is approved - then they should be able to provide it at cost. This way we don't have to worry about new drug discovery drying up because of lack of profits, while at the same time we have a way to allow government funding for actual drugs that could be provided at low cost. I think this private-public competition will provide both innovation and low prices in the long term.
- belorn 10y ago
  We already have private and government financed pharma research. US alone spends around $26.4 billion each year, which do not include university founded research (that goes under education) and the other smaller incentive systems for pharma research by organizations such as FDA (which is a third recipient of government founds). Regardless, no drugs is provided at cost. Government founded research is also the primary ground work for which private pharma use, and private pharma would unlikely survive today without that core research being done for free. But maybe government could be more return-on-investment friendly for the citizens who pay taxes and re-route some of that research founds into actually developing the end user drugs. At the same time they could create legal barriers for private pharma from using any tax funded pharma research. That would create some loud screams from the pharma lobby, and we would finally be able to say how valuable the patent supported pharma industry really is. I doubt however we will ever see such day, and patent supported pharma will continue to claim the glory while tax payers silently pays double for medicine. First through taxes and then a second time through the expensive drug prices in the pharmacy.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
    My thought was for government financed end user drug development. Think something like Pharma now but financed by taxes. This entity would compete on a level playing field with big Pharma. The basic science research would stay the same. Then both government end user drug research and private Pharma would compete on turning basic science into actual approved drugs.
evanpw 10y ago
Why wouldn't funding pharmaceutical research completely from taxes just lead to it being just as chronically underfunded as infrastructure currently is? And just as earmark-driven?
- benevol 10y ago
  Because you naturally apply the American perspective only.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

EGreg 10y ago

Going forward, open source would work much better for drugs than for-profit models. It does the long tail better. Bill Gates famously said that baldness is treated before malaria because of the aggregate economic power of the "customers". Similarly, Microsoft etc release Windows for x86 while Linux even runs on Toasters. Because without patents, anyone in the world can build on the work of others. Like they do in, you know, science. If they help the third world it will be by standing on the shoulders of giants, legally: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93

stephanheijl 10y ago
While I agree with the premise that open source could, in theory, serve the long tail better, I think the barrier to entry of pharmacological research is far higher than that of software development. It should be noted that this is not without reason. Controlled, double-blind studies are necessary for development of medicine and they are hard to do without a substantial amount of funds. This barrier to entry may decrease as biological models become cheaper and more accessible, but even as a hopeful bioinformatician, I am skeptical of this happening in the near term (10-15 years).
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Governments have lots of money. Even if a government research department was 20% less effective than an equivalent private sector research department (which I strongly doubt; they're probably equivalent), it would still be more cost effective. Pharma marketing budgets are titanic and that's an epic waste of money.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    I decided to look into this. I pulled the financials for Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Their research and development (R&D) spending, while significantly less than their Selling, General, and Administrative (SGA) spending, it is still comparable. Considering SGA includes a lot more than just advertising I would wager that their actual ad budgets (at least for Merck and AstraZeneca) are less than their R&D budgets. Pfizer: $7,690 million R&D, $14,809 million SGA Merck: $6,704 million R&D, $10,313 million SGA AstraZeneca: $5,997 million R&D, $9,951 million SGA

forrestthewoods 10y ago

That's a lot of shoulds. I hear government spending on research as part of the defense department is super effective.

alasdair_ 10y ago
The irony of someone being sarcastic about DoD research while communicating on a medium that was a direct result of DoD research is pretty funny :)
- whorleater 10y ago
  The internet being a result of DoD research doesn't make them impervious to criticism.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12189499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12189499 and marked it non sequitur.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  What? That's absurd. It's not a non-sequitur. It's a statement that massive government research projects are exceptionally overpriced and inefficient. Maybe a sarcastic comment isn't the most effective means of communication. But given the quality of the root comment I felt it appropriate. Here. Let me paste a blurb by Richard Posner from An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. Copyright law is not the same as patent law, of course. But the balance being sought is much the same. "A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."

srtjstjsj 10y ago

homepage is social media fauxtrage garbage, but there is some real information at http://handsoff.msf.org/generics-under-attack#anchor http://handsoff.msf.org/generics-under-attack#anchor