6 ms·

> We just need shorter patents. This is nuts. By the time a major drug is ready for market, out of a 20 year patent there are usually only 5 years left. How mu

> We just need shorter patents. This is nuts. By the time a major drug is ready for market, out of a 20 year patent there are usually only 5 years left. How much shorter do you think it should be? When they are operating under that kind of deadline, they don't have time for word-of-mouth marketing. For software, sure, I'm really willing to hear arguments that 20 years is too long. But drug patents lifetimes are already very small. If something is too expensive, wait a few years.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
>If something is too expensive, wait a few years. Isn't that the point? In medicine, you often can't just wait it out. Healthcare is not a normal market. >By the time a major drug is ready for market, out of a 20 year patent there are usually only 5 years left. >And for most new drugs, patents expire approximately 12 years after market introduction. https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-real-cost-of-high-priced-drugs https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-real-cost-of-high-priced-drugs >When they are operating under that kind of deadline, they don't have time for word-of-mouth marketing. Word-of-mouth marketing isn't really "slow" if the drug is very effective.
- danielweber 10y ago
  > In medicine, you often can't just wait it out. Healthcare is not a normal market Then you pay. I have family members who are only functional because of prescription drugs. When I see someone on HN talk about how "oh, it will probably be okay if we mess with this market, I read this really cool article online that said so," I see them no different than someone who decided on their own to start tinkering with grandpa's iron lung, because "oh, it will probably be okay." You don't know what you are messing with. Stop it. >And for most new drugs, patents expire approximately 12 years after market introduction. I don't know what the HBR's source is because they don't tell me. I am telling you to find any drug you see newly on the market, particularly one you see on tv since you worry about marketing budgets, and look up when its patent expires.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Why is one length of patent good for all drugs. Create the cure for cancer I can see you getting 30 years, add a antacid to an existing drug you should get 5.
    - danielweber 10y ago
      Perhaps they should be different, but people get most upset about the awesome drugs that cure things completely being under patent for so long. They don't care about that antacid drug so much. You would find yourself very short on allies with your proposal. All the money going towards marketing would instead go towards lobbying, towards getting the government agency in charge of deciding "what really counts" for deciding that this drug should be one of them. When the US government was looking at how to create incentives for invention, they did look at rewards systems, and this was the common problem. Using the market system, for all its faults and ways it could be improved, at least sends proper price signals to producers and consumers.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        You are probably right. We might have to accept less innovation in order to make the products affordable.
        danielweber 10y ago
        We are being asked to make the same hard decisions that each generation before us has made. And we are doing it while being far richer and having a greater repository of knowledge than them. Something's wrong with us if we quit where they preserved in worse conditions.
        grasshopperpurp 10y ago
        WHO is far richer, and WHO should pay for it? Are we fine with these companies spending 1/4 of their combined profits and marketing on R & D, as J&J does? At best, this is a remarkably inefficient way to drive innovation. The largest 10 pharmaceutical companies spent a combined $32.5B more on sales and marketing than R & D. No problem here? People are skipping dosing to stretch their meds further. Some people can't afford meds at all.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I think it would probably work out better to have a 15% excise tax on all pharmaceutical chemicals and preparations, charged on the wholesale price, collected at the shipping dock of the manufacturer or at the port of entry. This would go exclusively to fund a "research royalty" to the individuals who conduct drug research into utility, safety, and efficacy. I don't have any specifics as to how that would be distributed, but it should likely emphasize the importance of replication and value purity of the methods over whether the results are positive or negative. Right now, there are significant financial incentive that may bias research studies towards positive results. The patent system is magnifying those incentives.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

>If something is too expensive, wait a few years. Isn't that the point? In medicine, you often can't just wait it out. Healthcare is not a normal market. >By the time a major drug is ready for market, out of a 20 year patent there are usually only 5 years left. >And for most new drugs, patents expire approximately 12 years after market introduction. https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-real-cost-of-high-priced-drugs https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-real-cost-of-high-priced-drugs >When they are operating under that kind of deadline, they don't have time for word-of-mouth marketing. Word-of-mouth marketing isn't really "slow" if the drug is very effective.

danielweber 10y ago
> In medicine, you often can't just wait it out. Healthcare is not a normal market Then you pay. I have family members who are only functional because of prescription drugs. When I see someone on HN talk about how "oh, it will probably be okay if we mess with this market, I read this really cool article online that said so," I see them no different than someone who decided on their own to start tinkering with grandpa's iron lung, because "oh, it will probably be okay." You don't know what you are messing with. Stop it. >And for most new drugs, patents expire approximately 12 years after market introduction. I don't know what the HBR's source is because they don't tell me. I am telling you to find any drug you see newly on the market, particularly one you see on tv since you worry about marketing budgets, and look up when its patent expires.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Why is one length of patent good for all drugs. Create the cure for cancer I can see you getting 30 years, add a antacid to an existing drug you should get 5.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    Perhaps they should be different, but people get most upset about the awesome drugs that cure things completely being under patent for so long. They don't care about that antacid drug so much. You would find yourself very short on allies with your proposal. All the money going towards marketing would instead go towards lobbying, towards getting the government agency in charge of deciding "what really counts" for deciding that this drug should be one of them. When the US government was looking at how to create incentives for invention, they did look at rewards systems, and this was the common problem. Using the market system, for all its faults and ways it could be improved, at least sends proper price signals to producers and consumers.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      You are probably right. We might have to accept less innovation in order to make the products affordable.
      - danielweber 10y ago
        We are being asked to make the same hard decisions that each generation before us has made. And we are doing it while being far richer and having a greater repository of knowledge than them. Something's wrong with us if we quit where they preserved in worse conditions.
        grasshopperpurp 10y ago
        WHO is far richer, and WHO should pay for it? Are we fine with these companies spending 1/4 of their combined profits and marketing on R & D, as J&J does? At best, this is a remarkably inefficient way to drive innovation. The largest 10 pharmaceutical companies spent a combined $32.5B more on sales and marketing than R & D. No problem here? People are skipping dosing to stretch their meds further. Some people can't afford meds at all.

logfromblammo 10y ago

I think it would probably work out better to have a 15% excise tax on all pharmaceutical chemicals and preparations, charged on the wholesale price, collected at the shipping dock of the manufacturer or at the port of entry. This would go exclusively to fund a "research royalty" to the individuals who conduct drug research into utility, safety, and efficacy. I don't have any specifics as to how that would be distributed, but it should likely emphasize the importance of replication and value purity of the methods over whether the results are positive or negative. Right now, there are significant financial incentive that may bias research studies towards positive results. The patent system is magnifying those incentives.