6 ms·

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

by 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]

by 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]