5 ms·

Or we could start funding medical research through our system of universities and the like. We have immense public and non-profit institutions that can take ove

Or we could start funding medical research through our system of universities and the like. We have immense public and non-profit institutions that can take over. Maybe we'll even be able to see more benefit in treatment of rare and neglected diseases that way. It also means that a large number of people could actually afford medication, doctors, etc. I have friends who can't afford going to the doctor, can't afford medication, so go without. Their quality of life would greatly improve by them being able to get into the system.

SilasX 10y ago
Yes, it is definitely a possibility, that we could refactor the whole system and eliminate patents and set up a completely new model for drug development to work. That would affect a lot of stakeholders and be complicated politically, but yes, it's one route to take. I was only trying to establish that it's not a matter of "here's a single, obviously bad policy that can be clipped out and which only has downsides for greedy capitalists".
surfmike 10y ago
Indeed, there are not enough incentives for pharma companies to target third world or not-so-common disease, but instead to push things like Viagra. That's one of the things Gates Foundation is helping address but ideally we do it at the government level. Research through grants to universities and labs already fuels a lot of great R&D in the US and I feel like we need to have even more of it for medicine.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Indeed, there are not enough incentives for pharma companies to target third world or not-so-common disease, but instead to push things like Viagra. Viagra was originally developed as a medication for cardiovascular disorders and hypertension, which are major problems in both the "third world" and in developed nations. It was only later on that they discovered its use for erectile dysfunction. As for marketing Viagra - why is that a bad thing? Given that they've already done the bulk of the R&D for it, making money off the blockbuster drugs is exactly how pharmaceutical companies can afford to pour research into drugs that are a lot less likely to succeed, or which target poorer populations. Or, if you don't want to look at Pfizer, look at Gilead. While it's easy to criticize them for charging so much money for Sovaldi (or charging so much for Tenofovir a decade ago) charging the patients who can afford it for the early years is exactly how they recover their costs and justify things like clinical trials for PrEP (which, it's easy to forget today, were a massive risk at the time), or direct market subsidizes of PrEP for people who can't afford it otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if they did something similar for Sovaldi in the next decade as well.
- doggydogs94 10y ago
  Viagra is the only expensive drug that people willingly pay full price for.
prostoalex 10y ago
If the system you're describing is easy to set up and promises similar (or better) results at lower costs, why aren't other countries adopting it?

SilasX 10y ago

Yes, it is definitely a possibility, that we could refactor the whole system and eliminate patents and set up a completely new model for drug development to work. That would affect a lot of stakeholders and be complicated politically, but yes, it's one route to take. I was only trying to establish that it's not a matter of "here's a single, obviously bad policy that can be clipped out and which only has downsides for greedy capitalists".

surfmike 10y ago

Indeed, there are not enough incentives for pharma companies to target third world or not-so-common disease, but instead to push things like Viagra. That's one of the things Gates Foundation is helping address but ideally we do it at the government level. Research through grants to universities and labs already fuels a lot of great R&D in the US and I feel like we need to have even more of it for medicine.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> Indeed, there are not enough incentives for pharma companies to target third world or not-so-common disease, but instead to push things like Viagra. Viagra was originally developed as a medication for cardiovascular disorders and hypertension, which are major problems in both the "third world" and in developed nations. It was only later on that they discovered its use for erectile dysfunction. As for marketing Viagra - why is that a bad thing? Given that they've already done the bulk of the R&D for it, making money off the blockbuster drugs is exactly how pharmaceutical companies can afford to pour research into drugs that are a lot less likely to succeed, or which target poorer populations. Or, if you don't want to look at Pfizer, look at Gilead. While it's easy to criticize them for charging so much money for Sovaldi (or charging so much for Tenofovir a decade ago) charging the patients who can afford it for the early years is exactly how they recover their costs and justify things like clinical trials for PrEP (which, it's easy to forget today, were a massive risk at the time), or direct market subsidizes of PrEP for people who can't afford it otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if they did something similar for Sovaldi in the next decade as well.
doggydogs94 10y ago
Viagra is the only expensive drug that people willingly pay full price for.

prostoalex 10y ago

If the system you're describing is easy to set up and promises similar (or better) results at lower costs, why aren't other countries adopting it?