3 ms·

How much of the problem is actually the way (big) pharma conducts research? ( I know that I am over simplifying and dozens of startups are focused on improving

How much of the problem is actually the way (big) pharma conducts research? ( I know that I am over simplifying and dozens of startups are focused on improving the way research is done) From a manf process standpoint, there are cheaper ways to create these compounds. Generic drug manufacturers have proved that ignoring the cost of research, the drug itself costs next to nothing to make, market and sell. From an economics standpoint, healthcare costs are a significant part of GDP. In an ideal model if all research is funded directly via government grants and the key research is licensed through a free licensing - It should create a very competitive drug cost model.For a healthcare practice standpoint, legislation can really help. Stripping down some of the malpractice laws are a good starting point. Additionally, the monopoly on medical education should be broken - Making medical education a national priority is a key step. We also need to make sure, that doctors are not the only healthcare providers. Enabling entrepreneurship among non doctor(nurses, mid wives etc) medical practioners can increase the market supply. These 2 actions in theory should create more doctors and reduce the cost of practicing medicine.

temp-dude-87844 10y ago
Research is expensive because it is conducted by well-paying professionals over multiple years, then taken to several rounds drug trials, which come with risks of serious side effects. Negative outcomes resulting from drug trials -- as well as approved drugs -- are routinely litigated by the aggrieved parties, which result in expensive settlements or the risk of high damages (in some cases, punitive). Further, to promote public interest, patent protections on medication in most countries usually expire after 20 years, which limits the window of time in which the makers can recoup the cost. 'Tort reform' proposes (among others) to reduce the monetary risks associated with drug trials by limiting lawsuit payouts of limiting grounds to sue -- to its promoters, this benefits society at large (and the drug companies) while hurting a few individuals who happen to have found themselves embroiled in such a case. To its opponents, tort reform is an instrument to dismantle regulatory protections and results in little to no societal benefit, perversely incentivizing drugmakers to both a higher absolute quantity of drugs to drive overall revenues, while reducing the average quality of drugs to be less safe, and leave seriously injured people with no viable recourse. It's a complex problem with no easy answers.

temp-dude-87844 10y ago

Research is expensive because it is conducted by well-paying professionals over multiple years, then taken to several rounds drug trials, which come with risks of serious side effects. Negative outcomes resulting from drug trials -- as well as approved drugs -- are routinely litigated by the aggrieved parties, which result in expensive settlements or the risk of high damages (in some cases, punitive). Further, to promote public interest, patent protections on medication in most countries usually expire after 20 years, which limits the window of time in which the makers can recoup the cost. 'Tort reform' proposes (among others) to reduce the monetary risks associated with drug trials by limiting lawsuit payouts of limiting grounds to sue -- to its promoters, this benefits society at large (and the drug companies) while hurting a few individuals who happen to have found themselves embroiled in such a case. To its opponents, tort reform is an instrument to dismantle regulatory protections and results in little to no societal benefit, perversely incentivizing drugmakers to both a higher absolute quantity of drugs to drive overall revenues, while reducing the average quality of drugs to be less safe, and leave seriously injured people with no viable recourse. It's a complex problem with no easy answers.