2 ms·

I'm not arguing against patents. However, I am arguing against patent protection for de minimis structural changes that have no substantial therapeutic benefit

I'm not arguing against patents. However, I am arguing against patent protection for de minimis structural changes that have no substantial therapeutic benefit. Or bullshit delivery systems. For example, I use testosterone creme. Androgel costs a bloody fortune, because their formulation (basically hair gel) has patent protection. So I use a compounded cream that costs ~90% less. > The alternative to offering an extremely expensive patented drug to really sick patients is no drug at all (or whatever the previous standard of care was). That's not the only alternative. Drug development ought to be publicly funded. As it is, the drug industry tends to leech off publicly-funded research. And drug manufacturers ought to be paid only for the manufacturing.

loeg 8y ago
> However, I am arguing against patent protection for de minimis structural changes that have no substantial therapeutic benefit. Or bullshit delivery systems. Potato, potato. If they don't do the work to get FDA approval, even with the bullshit de minimis change, the alternative isn't a patent-free generic — it's nothing, for any price. > Androgel costs a bloody fortune, because their formulation (basically hair gel) has patent protection. So I use a compounded cream that costs ~90% less. So what is the problem with androgel's patent? How does it make your life worse? If they didn't have the patent, you'd still be using the same previous standard-of-care. > Drug development ought to be publicly funded. Well, good luck with that. > And drug manufacturers ought to be paid only for the manufacturing. Like, at-cost? I think you'd see drug manufacturing die out under that proposed policy.
- mirimir 8y ago
  > If they don't do the work to get FDA approval, even with the bullshit de minimis change, the alternative isn't a patent-free generic — it's nothing, for any price. No, the alternative is some old generic drug, which is just as effective as the new one. But the manufacturer bribes doctors to prescribe the new one, which has no generic equivalents. > So what is the problem with androgel's patent? How does it make your life worse? Because for years there was no commercial alternative. It was only by chance that I found a compounding pharmacy that sold an old-school version. > Like, at-cost? I think you'd see drug manufacturing die out under that proposed policy. That's how it works for generics. And there are lots of generics.
  - loeg 8y ago
    > No, the alternative is some old generic drug, which is just as effective as the new one. This is a little simplistic. The FDA strongly prefers evidence that new drugs are more effective than existing treatments. They look at the target condition and available treatments, including existing generics, to weigh the benefits and risks of a new drug being approved. And the only reason that "old generic" drug exists at all is because the patent process paid for its R&D more than 20 years ago. > But the manufacturer bribes doctors to prescribe the new one, which has no generic equivalents. This is illegal, for obvious reasons. I suspect it is less wide-spread than you think. > Because for years there was no commercial alternative. It was only by chance that I found a compounding pharmacy that sold an old-school version. So you're saying there wasn't an alternative treatment available and androgel brought an effective treatment to market and was rewarded for it? And they shouldn't be, because? > That's how it works for generics. And there are lots of generics. Generics manufacturers first, absolutely do not sell at-cost; they're for-profit companies trying to make money, not charities. And most importantly, they don't develop novel drugs.

loeg 8y ago

> However, I am arguing against patent protection for de minimis structural changes that have no substantial therapeutic benefit. Or bullshit delivery systems. Potato, potato. If they don't do the work to get FDA approval, even with the bullshit de minimis change, the alternative isn't a patent-free generic — it's nothing, for any price. > Androgel costs a bloody fortune, because their formulation (basically hair gel) has patent protection. So I use a compounded cream that costs ~90% less. So what is the problem with androgel's patent? How does it make your life worse? If they didn't have the patent, you'd still be using the same previous standard-of-care. > Drug development ought to be publicly funded. Well, good luck with that. > And drug manufacturers ought to be paid only for the manufacturing. Like, at-cost? I think you'd see drug manufacturing die out under that proposed policy.

mirimir 8y ago
> If they don't do the work to get FDA approval, even with the bullshit de minimis change, the alternative isn't a patent-free generic — it's nothing, for any price. No, the alternative is some old generic drug, which is just as effective as the new one. But the manufacturer bribes doctors to prescribe the new one, which has no generic equivalents. > So what is the problem with androgel's patent? How does it make your life worse? Because for years there was no commercial alternative. It was only by chance that I found a compounding pharmacy that sold an old-school version. > Like, at-cost? I think you'd see drug manufacturing die out under that proposed policy. That's how it works for generics. And there are lots of generics.
- loeg 8y ago
  > No, the alternative is some old generic drug, which is just as effective as the new one. This is a little simplistic. The FDA strongly prefers evidence that new drugs are more effective than existing treatments. They look at the target condition and available treatments, including existing generics, to weigh the benefits and risks of a new drug being approved. And the only reason that "old generic" drug exists at all is because the patent process paid for its R&D more than 20 years ago. > But the manufacturer bribes doctors to prescribe the new one, which has no generic equivalents. This is illegal, for obvious reasons. I suspect it is less wide-spread than you think. > Because for years there was no commercial alternative. It was only by chance that I found a compounding pharmacy that sold an old-school version. So you're saying there wasn't an alternative treatment available and androgel brought an effective treatment to market and was rewarded for it? And they shouldn't be, because? > That's how it works for generics. And there are lots of generics. Generics manufacturers first, absolutely do not sell at-cost; they're for-profit companies trying to make money, not charities. And most importantly, they don't develop novel drugs.