3 ms·

You have an extraordinarily complex web of payers and providers that takes PhD’s in regulation science to unwrap, and the solution proposed is “more regulations

You have an extraordinarily complex web of payers and providers that takes PhD’s in regulation science to unwrap, and the solution proposed is “more regulations”. Some better, free-market oriented solutions would be to remove patent protection from drugs discovered from tax payer funded research, or auction the right to be the exclusive distributor. It’s very sad that a large contingent of intelligent tech people, who have made small to large fortunes operating in one of the few unregulated industries in America (software), begging for yet more regulation in biotech and pharmaceuticals. The system is extremely distorted as it stands.

rayiner 8y ago
> remove patent protection from drugs discovered from tax payer funded research That would make government funded research a poison pill nobody would rely on. If you come up with the idea for an app, then someone else spends a bunch of money hiring coders to actually build, test, and commercialize it, does that give you the right to force release of the app as open source?
- seibelj 8y ago
  If the government spends millions to do the fundamental research required to find a molecule with potential, then society should benefit from its investment. It’s a different beast from a mobile app.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    "Should" doesn't matter. It's the same basic economic transaction. Nobody will agree to a deal where you demand complete ownership of a finished product based on funding some of the early development. They won't do it with mobile apps, and they won't do it with lifesaving drugs.
  - Reelin 8y ago
    I'm not a fan of the current state of affairs, but the cost of clinical trials is very real and absolutely enormous. Any workable solution will have to fully account for that.
- mkhpalm 8y ago
  Kind of, yeah... Your work doesn't have to be forced open but you can't monopolize the findings of the research your product is based on. In other words, if the research says elements X and Y seem to have some affect on cancer. You shouldn't get to use X and Y in your own patent.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It's a temporary monopoly, which pays for the work of going from "X and Y seem to have some effect on cancer" to "here is a drug that uses X and Y to treat cancer." There is a massive amount of work to get from point A to point B, which the government isn't set-up to do itself.
whoisthemachine 8y ago
Your "free-market oriented solutions" sound like regulations...
deogeo 8y ago
'Regulation' is not a scalar value that can be accurately compared with 'more' or 'less' - the type of regulation is crucially important.

rayiner 8y ago

> remove patent protection from drugs discovered from tax payer funded research That would make government funded research a poison pill nobody would rely on. If you come up with the idea for an app, then someone else spends a bunch of money hiring coders to actually build, test, and commercialize it, does that give you the right to force release of the app as open source?

seibelj 8y ago
If the government spends millions to do the fundamental research required to find a molecule with potential, then society should benefit from its investment. It’s a different beast from a mobile app.
- rayiner 8y ago
  "Should" doesn't matter. It's the same basic economic transaction. Nobody will agree to a deal where you demand complete ownership of a finished product based on funding some of the early development. They won't do it with mobile apps, and they won't do it with lifesaving drugs.
- Reelin 8y ago
  I'm not a fan of the current state of affairs, but the cost of clinical trials is very real and absolutely enormous. Any workable solution will have to fully account for that.
mkhpalm 8y ago
Kind of, yeah... Your work doesn't have to be forced open but you can't monopolize the findings of the research your product is based on. In other words, if the research says elements X and Y seem to have some affect on cancer. You shouldn't get to use X and Y in your own patent.
- rayiner 8y ago
  It's a temporary monopoly, which pays for the work of going from "X and Y seem to have some effect on cancer" to "here is a drug that uses X and Y to treat cancer." There is a massive amount of work to get from point A to point B, which the government isn't set-up to do itself.

whoisthemachine 8y ago

Your "free-market oriented solutions" sound like regulations...

deogeo 8y ago

'Regulation' is not a scalar value that can be accurately compared with 'more' or 'less' - the type of regulation is crucially important.