3 ms·

Curing disease is actually a much better illustration of "why won't VC/capitalism fund the 'right' things?" It is much more profitable to charge recurring "sub

Curing disease is actually a much better illustration of "why won't VC/capitalism fund the 'right' things?" It is much more profitable to charge recurring "subscription" payments for treatments to keep you healthy-ish, rather than to give you a one-time cure that actually fixes you or removes the disease entirely. This already is a thing: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patie... There is simply no way to align healthcare with capitalism, without creating perverse incentives around every corner.

Mirioron 6y ago
>There is simply no way to align healthcare with capitalism, without creating perverse incentives around every corner. I think there is and we already have it. The combination of every drug needing FDA approval with 20 year patents aligns coming up with new treatments with capitalist funding. Regardless whether you come up with a cure or "subscription model" treatment others can provide it cheaper once your patent runs out. That's why generic drugs that cost a lot of money to create end up costing cents later down the line. Aspirin costs very little at this point. People just expect every new treatment to immediately be available at low cost. Where it turns perverse is in mostly 2 points: 1. Regulation changes. It's sometimes easier to lobby for rule changes that allow you to repatent a treatment than it is to come up with a new one. An example of this would be asthma medication.[0] The price of inhalers multiplied in 2008 in the US. Inhalers used chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) as propellant. CFCs were banned to protect the ozone layer, but inhalers got an exception. In 2008 this exception was removed, which meant that drug manufacturers needed a new propellant. They ended up using hydrofluoroalkane, but this is considered a new treatment when it comes to patents. As a result the drug company could charge higher prices because there wasn't as much competition anymore. This is an issue with how patents are granted. 2. Single manufacturer. When a patent expires for a drug anyone can make it, which drives down the price. However, for some drugs there is only one manufacturer that can keep the price low, so nobody else is interested in making that drug. It then becomes possible for that company to increase the price and people will have to pay it. This was the case with Daraprim (Martin Shkreli). Despite these two problems, we've never had as many options in healthcare and it is steadily improving. Conditions that were a death sentence just a few decades ago, such as HIV, are now manageable with treatments. I don't think that this shows that the system is irredeemably broken.

Mirioron 6y ago

>There is simply no way to align healthcare with capitalism, without creating perverse incentives around every corner. I think there is and we already have it. The combination of every drug needing FDA approval with 20 year patents aligns coming up with new treatments with capitalist funding. Regardless whether you come up with a cure or "subscription model" treatment others can provide it cheaper once your patent runs out. That's why generic drugs that cost a lot of money to create end up costing cents later down the line. Aspirin costs very little at this point. People just expect every new treatment to immediately be available at low cost. Where it turns perverse is in mostly 2 points: 1. Regulation changes. It's sometimes easier to lobby for rule changes that allow you to repatent a treatment than it is to come up with a new one. An example of this would be asthma medication.[0] The price of inhalers multiplied in 2008 in the US. Inhalers used chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) as propellant. CFCs were banned to protect the ozone layer, but inhalers got an exception. In 2008 this exception was removed, which meant that drug manufacturers needed a new propellant. They ended up using hydrofluoroalkane, but this is considered a new treatment when it comes to patents. As a result the drug company could charge higher prices because there wasn't as much competition anymore. This is an issue with how patents are granted. 2. Single manufacturer. When a patent expires for a drug anyone can make it, which drives down the price. However, for some drugs there is only one manufacturer that can keep the price low, so nobody else is interested in making that drug. It then becomes possible for that company to increase the price and people will have to pay it. This was the case with Daraprim (Martin Shkreli). Despite these two problems, we've never had as many options in healthcare and it is steadily improving. Conditions that were a death sentence just a few decades ago, such as HIV, are now manageable with treatments. I don't think that this shows that the system is irredeemably broken.