6 ms·
The government has created a moat for the current pen through regulation, particularly the extensive testing needed to bring it to market as a medical device wh
by clavalle 10y ago
The government has created a moat for the current pen through regulation, particularly the extensive testing needed to bring it to market as a medical device whom people's lives depend on it delivering the right dosage with a low failure rate.
This creates something of a small granted monopoly.
It makes sense for the government to step in when something goes wrong.
There are lots of theoretical arguments for a freer market that may drain that moat and allow competitors to quickly react to gouging but the reality is that consumers don't have a great way to test things like epipens and a market trial and error approach seems a little barbaric.
- dleslie 10y agoSeems to me that less testing is necessary for an established product. Are there patents involved?
- grandalf 10y agohttps://www.google.com/patents/US20050273054 https://www.google.com/patents/US20050273054
- maxerickson 10y agoSure, any company wishing to enter the market can use the expired patent as a reference.
- dleslie 10y agoIt looks like there's a minefield of patents granted post-1995[0]; and so which enjoy a 20-year term of protection. I can't see why any protection is necessary. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12344059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12344059
- clavalle 10y agoEven if previous designs are followed, there are questions of materials and construction that need a significant amount of testing.
- grandalf 10y ago> a market trial and error approach seems a little barbaric. The average American earns less in a week than the cost of one epi pen. No, "nonfarm" statistics don't apply since people who work on farms still need epi pens. > It makes sense for the government to step in when something goes wrong. What has gone wrong in this case? The protected cronies of regulators are making a tidy profit after spending years cozying up, making political donations, and building a revolving door between industry and government. In actuality, in this case everything has gone abundantly right for regulators and firms. The task force will likely warn them that they should have just been satisfied with $350 per pen to avoid the bad press.
- clarkmoody 10y agoThank you. This is a problem that starts and ends with government, not with the "free market" (which hasn't existed in the healthcare industry in a long time)
- clavalle 10y agoThe problem is how does the free market test these kinds of things when there is every incentive to cut corners? We're not talking about toasters. How many people have to die before the market reacts? How much research into individual company's testing should a person do in order to buy an epipen?
- grandalf 10y ago> The problem is how does the free market test these kinds of things when there is every incentive to cut corners? The same incentive that makes the iPhone or Model S such poor quality? We don't know the name of the epi pen manufacturer because it does not need to develop a brand reputation, all it needs to do is reach a deal with regulators and collect profits. There is much room for a combination of public and self-interested private watchdog groups. There is no reason why we must rely on only one quality control approach. If things go poorly it can simply sell the patent to another firm who can repeat the same strategy, the only risks being that someone will come up with a better treatment or that regulators will take a dislike to the company... The second of these risks can be reduce through revolving door strategies and the standard regimen of fancy meals, etc.