3 ms·

If the government really wanted to lower the price of drugs it would pay for the FDA clinical trials[1] and lengthen the amount of time a drug company can colle

If the government really wanted to lower the price of drugs it would pay for the FDA clinical trials[1] and lengthen the amount of time a drug company can collect royalties. I remember when I was at a place that did clinical trials the cost of one protocol was $50,000 a day because of all the test kits that needed to have lab work done each day and the drug company only really had 3 years to get back its investment (plus pay for new research and have some profit) before the generics could happen. Cost of manufacture and distribution (just like software) is not the problem. With the extends royalty period have a required pricing structure that has a set price to prevent gouging.

makmanalp 10y ago
I understand the idea of the government paying for clinical trials, but then doesn't that incentivize pharma companies throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks, and basically wasting money on trials that they know are long shots? I think the trial costs belonging to the company is right. Anyway, regardless, what if pharma was only slightly or moderately profitable instead of insanely profitable? I don't want to be snarky, but the "we're not doing it unless it makes us a very big bag of cash" model of business just seems counter to the idea that having access to good healthcare is a basic human right. This is what makes me want to just create a whole DARPA + universities + national labs sort of system that takes on a lot of that responsibility of developing and testing drugs that is driven by more than just profit.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Well, frankly, having a big bag of cash is what got us a lot of the specialist doctors in tough areas requiring a lot of years of work. There is nothing wrong with making money if you provide a service worth it. We get nowhere when we deamonize money. Don't pay for failure if you care about that, but maybe we need a whole heck of a lot more throwing it at the wall than we have now. I can see some startups wanting to play where they cannot now.
  - makmanalp 10y ago
    Yeah, I'm absolutely not against researchers and specialists and people who /work on/ this stuff being well paid, it just seems like the bulk of the profits goes to shareholders (I'm guessing mostly large institutional investors) rather than getting reinvested back into other efforts for the greater good. I'm questioning whether we really need that component of it all.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      So do the bulk of the risks. Those profits power retirement accounts among other investors. Given on what forum we are discussing this, investors are important too.

makmanalp 10y ago

I understand the idea of the government paying for clinical trials, but then doesn't that incentivize pharma companies throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks, and basically wasting money on trials that they know are long shots? I think the trial costs belonging to the company is right. Anyway, regardless, what if pharma was only slightly or moderately profitable instead of insanely profitable? I don't want to be snarky, but the "we're not doing it unless it makes us a very big bag of cash" model of business just seems counter to the idea that having access to good healthcare is a basic human right. This is what makes me want to just create a whole DARPA + universities + national labs sort of system that takes on a lot of that responsibility of developing and testing drugs that is driven by more than just profit.

protomyth 10y ago
Well, frankly, having a big bag of cash is what got us a lot of the specialist doctors in tough areas requiring a lot of years of work. There is nothing wrong with making money if you provide a service worth it. We get nowhere when we deamonize money. Don't pay for failure if you care about that, but maybe we need a whole heck of a lot more throwing it at the wall than we have now. I can see some startups wanting to play where they cannot now.
- makmanalp 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm absolutely not against researchers and specialists and people who /work on/ this stuff being well paid, it just seems like the bulk of the profits goes to shareholders (I'm guessing mostly large institutional investors) rather than getting reinvested back into other efforts for the greater good. I'm questioning whether we really need that component of it all.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    So do the bulk of the risks. Those profits power retirement accounts among other investors. Given on what forum we are discussing this, investors are important too.