6 ms·

Healthcare costs for Alzheimer’s is going to be astronomical. https://www.alzheimers.net/research-spending-vs-annual-care-costs/ https://www.alzheimers.net/res

Healthcare costs for Alzheimer’s is going to be astronomical. https://www.alzheimers.net/research-spending-vs-annual-care-costs/ https://www.alzheimers.net/research-spending-vs-annual-care-... Finding a cure or delaying symptoms by a decade would save a lot of money. Let’s add $10 billion to the federal research budget and add a motivated czar to oversee the research. Wonder if Bill Gates has a few extra cycles.

Retric 8y ago
I don’t know if any drug could actually cure Alzheimer’s. We know we can’t completely replace exercise with a drug because mechanical stress is part of the process. So, drugs might work on Alzheimer’s patients, but without knowing the cause it’s still up in the air.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  Even if there was only a one in ten chance, it justifies an enormous research budget, when the costs are $200bn a year in the US alone. What we’re actually spending is far too little.
  - Retric 8y ago
    10% chance in the next 50 years seems extremely optimistic. We have no idea if it’s caused by a pathogen or something else, or even if it’s a single disease or several related diseases.
- melling 8y ago
  No one said all the money would be spent on drug research. The idea is that some basic science would also be done.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Outside of basic research there is little to be done. We don’t have a good animal model, and human testing on a disease that takes 30+ years is almost hopeless without a much better understanding of what’s going on.
    - melling 8y ago
      I'm not exactly sure what your point is? You're trying to tell me how hard the problem is? I never said the problem was easy, never offered a solution, or claimed there's a clear path to a solution. Alzheimer's is an underfunded disease given the amount that it costs us in healthcare. I'm saying we should spend a lot more money and put someone in charge of the money who will spend it effectively.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Saying it’s underfunded makes assumptions around how likely we are to find a solution. If hypothetically spending 1 trillion dollars gives us a 1 in 1 Billion chance of finding a cure then that’s simply not worth it. Further spending more money does not give linear increases in value. Bumping up from around 2 bullion a year sounds great from a budget standpoint, but do we have another 8 Billion dollars worth of promising research to do next year and people able to carry that out? We are already ramping up funding rapidly, but there are only so many specialists out there.
        melling 8y ago
        We don't need a cure for the investment to pay off. If we can simply slow the disease, we'll save a fortune. If the disease takes an additional decade, that's a lot of healthcare costs. You might even die from something else before it gets worse. I never claimed that if we doubled the money, we'd get double the research. I simply threw out a SMALL number like $10 billion a year. We spend $28 billion on HIV, for example. https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget I've read lots of articles over the decades about how AIDS would never be cured. Now you can live a long productive life with the disease.
        Retric 8y ago
        HIV has a well known cause which makes research more productive. Faster than light communication would be really useful, but we have no idea who to research it or if it’s even possible. Alzheimer’s research is not quite that bad, but we have already spent 10’s of billions and still have no real clue what’s going on let alone a possible way to treat it. PS: People talk about the huge improvement in AIDS treatments, but by default people where often living 15+ years after infection. Note infection not detection. Extending that was always considered a viable approach.
buboard 8y ago
Presuming Bill Gates has track record in finding cures?
- corndoge 8y ago
  B&MGF were largely responsible for the eradication of polio
  - layoutIfNeeded 8y ago
    *in the developing world Polio have been eradicated in developed nations by the 1980s.
    - shim2k 8y ago
      Well, to be fair his comment is still correct.
    - BurningFrog 8y ago
      Even Bill Gates can't eradicate polio where it doesn't exist!
- melling 8y ago
  He needs to figure out where to effectively invest the money. He's already investing some of his money. https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/11/13/microsoft-billionaire-bill-gates-is-investing-100-million-in-alzheimers-research/#3520899b328f https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/11/13/microsoft-b...
- ineedasername 8y ago
  Bill Gates, with the B&MGF, has a decent track record of finding and boosting low-cost solutions to chronic and systemic issues. Basically, choosing where to focus resources to the best effect. I'm not saying he'd revolutionize this field, but there are worse choices than someone with his track record.
  - 8y ago
Bluestrike2 8y ago
The Alzheimer's Association's 2018 annual report[0] estimates total healthcare expenditures at $277 billion per year in 2018 alone. That's in addition to the $232 billion cost of ~18.4 billion hours of care by family and unpaid caregivers which itself excludes the immediate expenditures associated with that care, the effects of decline in mental and physical health of the caregivers themselves, changes in workplace participation resulting from providing said caregiving, etc. Or the myriad of other costs, many of which are indirect. Even miniscule increases in R&D funding for Alzheimer's could lead to a truly massive ROI for society. 0. https://www.alz.org/media/HomeOffice/Facts%20and%20Figures/facts-and-figures.pdf https://www.alz.org/media/HomeOffice/Facts%20and%20Figures/f...

Retric 8y ago

I don’t know if any drug could actually cure Alzheimer’s. We know we can’t completely replace exercise with a drug because mechanical stress is part of the process. So, drugs might work on Alzheimer’s patients, but without knowing the cause it’s still up in the air.

Brakenshire 8y ago
Even if there was only a one in ten chance, it justifies an enormous research budget, when the costs are $200bn a year in the US alone. What we’re actually spending is far too little.
- Retric 8y ago
  10% chance in the next 50 years seems extremely optimistic. We have no idea if it’s caused by a pathogen or something else, or even if it’s a single disease or several related diseases.
melling 8y ago
No one said all the money would be spent on drug research. The idea is that some basic science would also be done.
- Retric 8y ago
  Outside of basic research there is little to be done. We don’t have a good animal model, and human testing on a disease that takes 30+ years is almost hopeless without a much better understanding of what’s going on.
  - melling 8y ago
    I'm not exactly sure what your point is? You're trying to tell me how hard the problem is? I never said the problem was easy, never offered a solution, or claimed there's a clear path to a solution. Alzheimer's is an underfunded disease given the amount that it costs us in healthcare. I'm saying we should spend a lot more money and put someone in charge of the money who will spend it effectively.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Saying it’s underfunded makes assumptions around how likely we are to find a solution. If hypothetically spending 1 trillion dollars gives us a 1 in 1 Billion chance of finding a cure then that’s simply not worth it. Further spending more money does not give linear increases in value. Bumping up from around 2 bullion a year sounds great from a budget standpoint, but do we have another 8 Billion dollars worth of promising research to do next year and people able to carry that out? We are already ramping up funding rapidly, but there are only so many specialists out there.
      - melling 8y ago
        We don't need a cure for the investment to pay off. If we can simply slow the disease, we'll save a fortune. If the disease takes an additional decade, that's a lot of healthcare costs. You might even die from something else before it gets worse. I never claimed that if we doubled the money, we'd get double the research. I simply threw out a SMALL number like $10 billion a year. We spend $28 billion on HIV, for example. https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget I've read lots of articles over the decades about how AIDS would never be cured. Now you can live a long productive life with the disease.
        Retric 8y ago
        HIV has a well known cause which makes research more productive. Faster than light communication would be really useful, but we have no idea who to research it or if it’s even possible. Alzheimer’s research is not quite that bad, but we have already spent 10’s of billions and still have no real clue what’s going on let alone a possible way to treat it. PS: People talk about the huge improvement in AIDS treatments, but by default people where often living 15+ years after infection. Note infection not detection. Extending that was always considered a viable approach.

buboard 8y ago

Presuming Bill Gates has track record in finding cures?

corndoge 8y ago
B&MGF were largely responsible for the eradication of polio
- layoutIfNeeded 8y ago
  *in the developing world Polio have been eradicated in developed nations by the 1980s.
  - shim2k 8y ago
    Well, to be fair his comment is still correct.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    Even Bill Gates can't eradicate polio where it doesn't exist!
melling 8y ago
He needs to figure out where to effectively invest the money. He's already investing some of his money. https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/11/13/microsoft-billionaire-bill-gates-is-investing-100-million-in-alzheimers-research/#3520899b328f https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/11/13/microsoft-b...
ineedasername 8y ago
Bill Gates, with the B&MGF, has a decent track record of finding and boosting low-cost solutions to chronic and systemic issues. Basically, choosing where to focus resources to the best effect. I'm not saying he'd revolutionize this field, but there are worse choices than someone with his track record.
- 8y ago

Bluestrike2 8y ago

The Alzheimer's Association's 2018 annual report[0] estimates total healthcare expenditures at $277 billion per year in 2018 alone. That's in addition to the $232 billion cost of ~18.4 billion hours of care by family and unpaid caregivers which itself excludes the immediate expenditures associated with that care, the effects of decline in mental and physical health of the caregivers themselves, changes in workplace participation resulting from providing said caregiving, etc. Or the myriad of other costs, many of which are indirect. Even miniscule increases in R&D funding for Alzheimer's could lead to a truly massive ROI for society. 0. https://www.alz.org/media/HomeOffice/Facts%20and%20Figures/facts-and-figures.pdf https://www.alz.org/media/HomeOffice/Facts%20and%20Figures/f...