4 ms·

Threaten to nationalize manufacturing of Naloxone, then do it if prices aren't brought down. If there's an epidemic and private manufacturers can't respond to

Threaten to nationalize manufacturing of Naloxone, then do it if prices aren't brought down. If there's an epidemic and private manufacturers can't respond to the demand without raising prices by a factor of 10, something needs to be done. Annual overdose deaths have doubled over the last ten years. To bring a certain brand of hyperbole to the table, 2016 saw a loss of life equivalent to about thirty times that of 9/11. Some see that as national crisis, others see it as an opportunity to gouge our people, towns and country.

refurb 9y ago
Threaten to nationalize manufacturing of Naloxone, then do it if prices aren't brought down. That should do wonders for R&D investment in the US!!
- zanny 9y ago
  The majority of useful drug R&D (ie, not more penis enlargement pills) comes from research grants and university labs, not from private drug companies. It is a great meme Big Pharma has spread as a means to protect their lavish profit structure. The US leads in pharma research because it has the best research universities, not because it has private drug companies and no universal healthcare.
  - refurb 9y ago
    The majority of useful drug R&D (ie, not more penis enlargement pills) comes from research grants and university labs Absolutely false. Only 24% of new, innovative drugs come from academia. 76% come from biotech or pharma companies.[1] And even if they were discovered by an academic center, someone still has to take it all the way to the finish line which is where most of the cost comes from. [1]http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/whe...
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  The present drug R&D regime is remarkably ineffective. There's been little advance in overall mortality rates since the 1920s / 1930s. Much of that comes from public-health measures, including preventive care, water and environmental quality, food quality, risk reductions (e.g., safety standards on electrical and mechanical equipment, automobiles, etc.), through removal and reduction in contaminants (especially of environmental lead in paints and motor-vehicle fuels), an through, apropos this thread, reduction in habitual consumption of drugs, notably alcohol, tobacco, and various narcotics. What R&D exists has focused to a large extent on chronic conditions (far better treated through lifestyle changes), in specific high-value conditions (think impotence, though that's arguably a quality-of-life issue), and in treatments which offer often only very slight improvements in treatment. A notable exception would be the introduction of artificial birth control, notably hormonal contraception, "The Pill". In 1960. Fifty-seven years ago. (And yes, there've been incremental advances since.) The cancer that killed my good friend nearly 30 years ago? Still effectively untreatable. And the therapies used then were the same as had been used two, and for the most part three, decades earlier. Directed national policy sometimes is precisely the right tool to bring to bear. C.f., China. Or Friedrich List.
  - refurb 9y ago
    There's been little advance in overall mortality rates since the 1920s / 1930s. Going to have to disagree with you. Penicillin wasn't discovered until the 1940's. That alone is a huge benefit to mankind. Add on top of that the number of cancers who before were an immediate death sentence and are now chronic conditions (AML, HER2+ breast cancer, etc.) Are there still cancers out there we can't treat? Sure, but that doesn't mean we haven't made massive strides in care.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      See: https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/MsQfdPAn_0XUdZUoReBfbg https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/MsQfdPAn_0XUdZUoReBfbg Specificially 200 years of mortality data as compiled by the New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene: https://assets2.ello.co/uploads/asset/attachment/1468664/ello-xhdpi-281770e7.jpg https://assets2.ello.co/uploads/asset/attachment/1468664/ell... Note that from 1940 to 1950 the mortality rate actually rose. Much of the improvement since 1970, if you dig into detailed statistics, comes from traditionally underserved communities, most especially black males. There's a lot more to be had for seeing those who get little or no treatment, get more, than in increasing treatment of the most privileged. Laurie Garrett, author of The Coming Plague: “In all, 86 per cent of the increased life expectancy was due to decreases in infectious diseases. And the bulk of the decline in infectious disease deaths occurred prior to the age of antibiotics. Less than 4 per cent of the total improvement in life expectancy since 1700s can be credited to twentieth-century advances in medical care.” https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12627.Laurie_Garrett https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12627.Laurie_Garrett I'd be quite interested to know what specific outcomes progress in cancer treatment you have in mind.
zanny 9y ago
The Naloxone patent expired in the 80s. There is not some grand complication to its production - there are plenty of generic drug manufacturers who could be making Naloxone for $5 a bottle. It seems obvious this is more a case of regulations mandating the use of brand name Naloxone by a specific company, thus eliminating any free market competition in the prices since only one entity can provide Naloxone to EMTs by law. And, naturally, the politicians that signed such a law to mandate one singular company provide all of a specific drug probably got sizable benefits from said drug company for doing so.

refurb 9y ago

Threaten to nationalize manufacturing of Naloxone, then do it if prices aren't brought down. That should do wonders for R&D investment in the US!!

zanny 9y ago
The majority of useful drug R&D (ie, not more penis enlargement pills) comes from research grants and university labs, not from private drug companies. It is a great meme Big Pharma has spread as a means to protect their lavish profit structure. The US leads in pharma research because it has the best research universities, not because it has private drug companies and no universal healthcare.
- refurb 9y ago
  The majority of useful drug R&D (ie, not more penis enlargement pills) comes from research grants and university labs Absolutely false. Only 24% of new, innovative drugs come from academia. 76% come from biotech or pharma companies.[1] And even if they were discovered by an academic center, someone still has to take it all the way to the finish line which is where most of the cost comes from. [1]http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/whe...
dredmorbius 9y ago
The present drug R&D regime is remarkably ineffective. There's been little advance in overall mortality rates since the 1920s / 1930s. Much of that comes from public-health measures, including preventive care, water and environmental quality, food quality, risk reductions (e.g., safety standards on electrical and mechanical equipment, automobiles, etc.), through removal and reduction in contaminants (especially of environmental lead in paints and motor-vehicle fuels), an through, apropos this thread, reduction in habitual consumption of drugs, notably alcohol, tobacco, and various narcotics. What R&D exists has focused to a large extent on chronic conditions (far better treated through lifestyle changes), in specific high-value conditions (think impotence, though that's arguably a quality-of-life issue), and in treatments which offer often only very slight improvements in treatment. A notable exception would be the introduction of artificial birth control, notably hormonal contraception, "The Pill". In 1960. Fifty-seven years ago. (And yes, there've been incremental advances since.) The cancer that killed my good friend nearly 30 years ago? Still effectively untreatable. And the therapies used then were the same as had been used two, and for the most part three, decades earlier. Directed national policy sometimes is precisely the right tool to bring to bear. C.f., China. Or Friedrich List.
- refurb 9y ago
  There's been little advance in overall mortality rates since the 1920s / 1930s. Going to have to disagree with you. Penicillin wasn't discovered until the 1940's. That alone is a huge benefit to mankind. Add on top of that the number of cancers who before were an immediate death sentence and are now chronic conditions (AML, HER2+ breast cancer, etc.) Are there still cancers out there we can't treat? Sure, but that doesn't mean we haven't made massive strides in care.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    See: https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/MsQfdPAn_0XUdZUoReBfbg https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/MsQfdPAn_0XUdZUoReBfbg Specificially 200 years of mortality data as compiled by the New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene: https://assets2.ello.co/uploads/asset/attachment/1468664/ello-xhdpi-281770e7.jpg https://assets2.ello.co/uploads/asset/attachment/1468664/ell... Note that from 1940 to 1950 the mortality rate actually rose. Much of the improvement since 1970, if you dig into detailed statistics, comes from traditionally underserved communities, most especially black males. There's a lot more to be had for seeing those who get little or no treatment, get more, than in increasing treatment of the most privileged. Laurie Garrett, author of The Coming Plague: “In all, 86 per cent of the increased life expectancy was due to decreases in infectious diseases. And the bulk of the decline in infectious disease deaths occurred prior to the age of antibiotics. Less than 4 per cent of the total improvement in life expectancy since 1700s can be credited to twentieth-century advances in medical care.” https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12627.Laurie_Garrett https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12627.Laurie_Garrett I'd be quite interested to know what specific outcomes progress in cancer treatment you have in mind.

zanny 9y ago

The Naloxone patent expired in the 80s. There is not some grand complication to its production - there are plenty of generic drug manufacturers who could be making Naloxone for $5 a bottle. It seems obvious this is more a case of regulations mandating the use of brand name Naloxone by a specific company, thus eliminating any free market competition in the prices since only one entity can provide Naloxone to EMTs by law. And, naturally, the politicians that signed such a law to mandate one singular company provide all of a specific drug probably got sizable benefits from said drug company for doing so.