4 ms·

We used to have government-funded research programs at universities, now we have for-profit big pharma which by definition creates treatments that cost more. I

We used to have government-funded research programs at universities, now we have for-profit big pharma which by definition creates treatments that cost more. It could be argued that this was by design. So open sourcing cures like this is a natural free market reaction to that. Since most of the cost of any new medication today is research, we should decouple that cost from production. The main reason this doesn't happen is that conservatives preach personal responsibility, so want people with hepatitis C to pay for their own treatment at $80,000 a pop. But even if the cost to develop that cure was a billion dollars, that's a tiny amount for the government to absorb. We should be having a space race to cure the worst diseases and then give those cures to the world for free (or nearly free), much like penicillin or the polio vaccine. Please keep in mind that I'm not politicizing this - it's already been politicized. I'm just explaining what happened.

aero142 9y ago
You are arguing with a straw man. The other side doesn't believe that a dollar spent by the government is as effective as a dollar spent by the private sector.
- enugu 9y ago
  If that is the primary obstacle, you can have a design which assigns money to a private research organization to develop drugs for government. Also, current pharma will be biased against any cost effective solutions as this will cut their margins. There's got to be some alternative path to research and bring in these treatments to the public.
  - beisner 9y ago
    I 100% support a drug bounty program, where the government puts up a huge bounty (I.e. $1-3bn) for diseases where cures/treatments are needed, and pharma companies compete for those bounties. Victors would get the full bounty, and the govt would get the rights to the drug. Would allow the public to incentivize treatments that are best for public health, since companies are incentivized to create long-lasting, expensive treatments vs 1-off cures. And would decouple end-user price. For instance, i think we would have found a vaccine for HIV by now if antiretrovirals weren’t so damn profitable over the lifespan of a patient.
    - nv-vn 9y ago
      Of course, that money would come out of your taxes as a US citizen. And since you'd still have to pay for the drug (even at the reduced price), you would just effectively be creating socialized medicine.
      - beisner 9y ago
        The bounty could be for all drugs, some drugs, or just the super important ones. Scale the system to however much socialized medicine you can take.
apsec112 9y ago
The NIH budget, the largest US government funder of medical research, is bigger now than at any time before 2000 (although it's down a bit from the 2003 peak, adjusting for inflation). Source: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/NIHMech_1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/NIHMech_1.jpg
- zackmorris 9y ago
  Thank you, if that's true then I stand corrected. Something to consider though is the NIH is under constant threat of cuts which might discourage going deep on hard problems: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/16/520390147/trump-administration-proposes-big-cuts-in-medical-research http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/16/52039014... Also $30 billion is only 0.75% of the projected $4 trillion federal budget for next year. Just percentage-wise this seems like something that should be low on the list for cuts.
maxerickson 9y ago
If that is their goal they are bad at it. Medicaid is one of the largest payers for Hep C treatments. http://annals.org/aim/article/2362306/restrictions-medicaid-reimbursement-sofosbuvir-treatment-hepatitis-c-virus-infection-united http://annals.org/aim/article/2362306/restrictions-medicaid-... Billions of dollars a year since 2014.
freethinker777 9y ago
There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility, the issue starts and ends with the patent system. Patents are government granted monopolies, reducing the length or eliminating the exclusivity of patents would solve the high price to consumer problem completely.

aero142 9y ago

You are arguing with a straw man. The other side doesn't believe that a dollar spent by the government is as effective as a dollar spent by the private sector.

enugu 9y ago
If that is the primary obstacle, you can have a design which assigns money to a private research organization to develop drugs for government. Also, current pharma will be biased against any cost effective solutions as this will cut their margins. There's got to be some alternative path to research and bring in these treatments to the public.
- beisner 9y ago
  I 100% support a drug bounty program, where the government puts up a huge bounty (I.e. $1-3bn) for diseases where cures/treatments are needed, and pharma companies compete for those bounties. Victors would get the full bounty, and the govt would get the rights to the drug. Would allow the public to incentivize treatments that are best for public health, since companies are incentivized to create long-lasting, expensive treatments vs 1-off cures. And would decouple end-user price. For instance, i think we would have found a vaccine for HIV by now if antiretrovirals weren’t so damn profitable over the lifespan of a patient.
  - nv-vn 9y ago
    Of course, that money would come out of your taxes as a US citizen. And since you'd still have to pay for the drug (even at the reduced price), you would just effectively be creating socialized medicine.
    - beisner 9y ago
      The bounty could be for all drugs, some drugs, or just the super important ones. Scale the system to however much socialized medicine you can take.

apsec112 9y ago

The NIH budget, the largest US government funder of medical research, is bigger now than at any time before 2000 (although it's down a bit from the 2003 peak, adjusting for inflation). Source: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/NIHMech_1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/NIHMech_1.jpg

zackmorris 9y ago
Thank you, if that's true then I stand corrected. Something to consider though is the NIH is under constant threat of cuts which might discourage going deep on hard problems: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/16/520390147/trump-administration-proposes-big-cuts-in-medical-research http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/16/52039014... Also $30 billion is only 0.75% of the projected $4 trillion federal budget for next year. Just percentage-wise this seems like something that should be low on the list for cuts.

maxerickson 9y ago

If that is their goal they are bad at it. Medicaid is one of the largest payers for Hep C treatments. http://annals.org/aim/article/2362306/restrictions-medicaid-reimbursement-sofosbuvir-treatment-hepatitis-c-virus-infection-united http://annals.org/aim/article/2362306/restrictions-medicaid-... Billions of dollars a year since 2014.

freethinker777 9y ago

There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility, the issue starts and ends with the patent system. Patents are government granted monopolies, reducing the length or eliminating the exclusivity of patents would solve the high price to consumer problem completely.