5 ms·

I think blaming drug companies and wholesalers just misses the point. Drugs are really good today. Not even the life saving types, but also things like migrain

I think blaming drug companies and wholesalers just misses the point. Drugs are really good today. Not even the life saving types, but also things like migraine medication or acid reflux relief. If you suffer and have the means, you'll pay what the market demands for relief. And we live in a wealthy country.

code_duck 10y ago
That's true, but there are also many drugs on the market which are barely better than a placebo, or even more harmful than no medication. However, they are still prescribed and billed for as if they are effective.
- refurb 10y ago
  Have any examples? The FDA won't approve a drug unless safety and efficacy have been proven.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    Over the counter cough syrup is a weird category. It is an old drug, and some of the studies are mixed. The FDA regulations weren't the same back then, and so it still has the approval. It has some issues when kids take a whole bottle, which means some places restrict its sale - but overall, it hasn't proved harmful to folks either. Cough drops are another one. There isn't much evidence they make you breathe better, yet people report that they do. They think this is likely due to the reaction menthol has on mucus membranes - it feels cool on the air one is breathing so they feel their breath. Yet, menthol is considered a drug and as such, it must have an FDA approval. Edit: I know these aren't prescription, but they were the first ones I thought of.
  - code_duck 10y ago
    Unfortunately that process is a lot more complex than one might think, like everything else involving medicine, government, or even worse, a combination of the two. Safety and efficacy are not a binary condition, either. Questions you might ask are, how effective does a drug have to be to be approved? Is it better to have false positives or false negatives? Who pays for and conducts the studies, and who reviews them? How many FDA officials used to work for or lobby for the companies they are regulating? There are many drugs withdrawn for the reasons I mentioned - ineffectiveness or harm. While I don't personally maintain a handy list of links to articles about this topic, this list contains many drugs that were withdrawn from the market for the reasons mentioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs First thing I clicked on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoprofen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoprofen Withdrawn for causing severe gastrointestinal bleeding
    - refurb 10y ago
      Every drug is approved based on a risk vs. benefit analysis. The FDA can't know exactly what will happen when the drug is approved since you can't test a drug on every patient prior to approval (that would be unethical). No one should be surprised when a few drugs are pulled off the market post-launch. I would argue the FDA didn't make a mistake here and the system works.
      - code_duck 10y ago
        All I was asserting was my original statement. Many drugs are on the market which are ineffective or harmful. As far as your conclusion there, like your other question it's dramatically over simplified. Whether it 'works' or not seems like a judgement so binary as to be useless. How well it works depends on many factors that we haven't discussed at all.
clueless123 10y ago
If your drug is so good, you should let the market decide what the fair price. The problem is that drug companies and wholesalers don't let that happen by lobbying against open markets and government paid healthcare.
- rayiner 10y ago
  I'm in favor of government-paid healthcare, but you can't have a functioning free market when one buyer dominates. It's the mirror situation of a monopoly.
- refurb 10y ago
  If your drug is so good, you should let the market decide what the fair price. Contrary to what people think, drug companies can't just charge whatever they want. Take a look at the HCV drugs. They priced too high and their sales are eroding very quickly. If they had priced lower, they probably would have seen even greater profits.
  - kgwgk 10y ago
    How so? There are only so many patients to treat. Sales are eroding mostly because competition has brought prices down and improved drugs allow for shorter treatments.
    - refurb 10y ago
      The price was too high. There are millions of untreated HCV patients out there that can't get treated because insurance companies won't pay for the drugs.
      - kgwgk 10y ago
        Now the prices are lower... and the profits as well.
        refurb 10y ago
awinder 10y ago
While this country may be wealthy, there's rampant disparity in who holds that wealth. This is an issue because real people are making the decision to either pay for food or pay for life-saving medications they depend on. The number of people in the cross-section of "suffering" and "have the means" is much lower than the number of people in the cross-section of "suffering" and "don't have the means", and rational society is based on the simple premise of making decisions that optimize society for the majority.
23443463453 10y ago
I really despise that "we live in a wealthy country" communist mentality because it is impudent and parasitic. It is precisely because people who had the polar opposite mindset who brought about the outcome of "living in a wealthy country", and now people like you want to give away and sabotage things and culture and mindsets that are not yours to give away or destroy just because you take them for granted and have no sense for what it took to achieve such a state. "We live in a wealthy country" not by accident, but by people's values and tenacious determination and culture and social priorities that are often generalized as God's blessings or by the grace of God. You can look to places that are not wealthy for clear proof of mentalities and values that never have, currently do not, and will not result in the same outcomes no matter how much you give away other people's things. Feel free to give away what you have to others that don't have whatever you want to give them, but how about you control your authoritarian dictator impulses to give away other people's things, lest it result in inevitable conflict and misery. It's always the same story with you immoral authoritarian types, give away other people's things against their will, but not your own. "We live in a wealthy country" is the counter-productive entitled mindset of someone who is freeloading and has things they were provided without having to earn them and therefor have zero sense for what it actually took to bring such a state about, which leads to it begin taken for granted and seen as inexhaustible.
rlpb 10y ago
> If you suffer and have the means, you'll pay what the market demands for relief. Actually you'll [be forced to] pay above that price, because the market is distorted by non-free-market forces. The moment drug companies arrange to intervene by having the law altered to their favor, blaming them for inflated prices becomes entirely reasonable.

code_duck 10y ago

That's true, but there are also many drugs on the market which are barely better than a placebo, or even more harmful than no medication. However, they are still prescribed and billed for as if they are effective.

refurb 10y ago
Have any examples? The FDA won't approve a drug unless safety and efficacy have been proven.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Over the counter cough syrup is a weird category. It is an old drug, and some of the studies are mixed. The FDA regulations weren't the same back then, and so it still has the approval. It has some issues when kids take a whole bottle, which means some places restrict its sale - but overall, it hasn't proved harmful to folks either. Cough drops are another one. There isn't much evidence they make you breathe better, yet people report that they do. They think this is likely due to the reaction menthol has on mucus membranes - it feels cool on the air one is breathing so they feel their breath. Yet, menthol is considered a drug and as such, it must have an FDA approval. Edit: I know these aren't prescription, but they were the first ones I thought of.
- code_duck 10y ago
  Unfortunately that process is a lot more complex than one might think, like everything else involving medicine, government, or even worse, a combination of the two. Safety and efficacy are not a binary condition, either. Questions you might ask are, how effective does a drug have to be to be approved? Is it better to have false positives or false negatives? Who pays for and conducts the studies, and who reviews them? How many FDA officials used to work for or lobby for the companies they are regulating? There are many drugs withdrawn for the reasons I mentioned - ineffectiveness or harm. While I don't personally maintain a handy list of links to articles about this topic, this list contains many drugs that were withdrawn from the market for the reasons mentioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs First thing I clicked on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoprofen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoprofen Withdrawn for causing severe gastrointestinal bleeding
  - refurb 10y ago
    Every drug is approved based on a risk vs. benefit analysis. The FDA can't know exactly what will happen when the drug is approved since you can't test a drug on every patient prior to approval (that would be unethical). No one should be surprised when a few drugs are pulled off the market post-launch. I would argue the FDA didn't make a mistake here and the system works.
    - code_duck 10y ago
      All I was asserting was my original statement. Many drugs are on the market which are ineffective or harmful. As far as your conclusion there, like your other question it's dramatically over simplified. Whether it 'works' or not seems like a judgement so binary as to be useless. How well it works depends on many factors that we haven't discussed at all.

clueless123 10y ago

If your drug is so good, you should let the market decide what the fair price. The problem is that drug companies and wholesalers don't let that happen by lobbying against open markets and government paid healthcare.

rayiner 10y ago
I'm in favor of government-paid healthcare, but you can't have a functioning free market when one buyer dominates. It's the mirror situation of a monopoly.
refurb 10y ago
If your drug is so good, you should let the market decide what the fair price. Contrary to what people think, drug companies can't just charge whatever they want. Take a look at the HCV drugs. They priced too high and their sales are eroding very quickly. If they had priced lower, they probably would have seen even greater profits.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  How so? There are only so many patients to treat. Sales are eroding mostly because competition has brought prices down and improved drugs allow for shorter treatments.
  - refurb 10y ago
    The price was too high. There are millions of untreated HCV patients out there that can't get treated because insurance companies won't pay for the drugs.
    - kgwgk 10y ago
      Now the prices are lower... and the profits as well.
      - refurb 10y ago

awinder 10y ago

While this country may be wealthy, there's rampant disparity in who holds that wealth. This is an issue because real people are making the decision to either pay for food or pay for life-saving medications they depend on. The number of people in the cross-section of "suffering" and "have the means" is much lower than the number of people in the cross-section of "suffering" and "don't have the means", and rational society is based on the simple premise of making decisions that optimize society for the majority.

23443463453 10y ago

I really despise that "we live in a wealthy country" communist mentality because it is impudent and parasitic. It is precisely because people who had the polar opposite mindset who brought about the outcome of "living in a wealthy country", and now people like you want to give away and sabotage things and culture and mindsets that are not yours to give away or destroy just because you take them for granted and have no sense for what it took to achieve such a state. "We live in a wealthy country" not by accident, but by people's values and tenacious determination and culture and social priorities that are often generalized as God's blessings or by the grace of God. You can look to places that are not wealthy for clear proof of mentalities and values that never have, currently do not, and will not result in the same outcomes no matter how much you give away other people's things. Feel free to give away what you have to others that don't have whatever you want to give them, but how about you control your authoritarian dictator impulses to give away other people's things, lest it result in inevitable conflict and misery. It's always the same story with you immoral authoritarian types, give away other people's things against their will, but not your own. "We live in a wealthy country" is the counter-productive entitled mindset of someone who is freeloading and has things they were provided without having to earn them and therefor have zero sense for what it actually took to bring such a state about, which leads to it begin taken for granted and seen as inexhaustible.

rlpb 10y ago

> If you suffer and have the means, you'll pay what the market demands for relief. Actually you'll [be forced to] pay above that price, because the market is distorted by non-free-market forces. The moment drug companies arrange to intervene by having the law altered to their favor, blaming them for inflated prices becomes entirely reasonable.