3 ms·

> can we create an independent non-profit which receives ownership, and whose charter aligns with actually treating as many people as possible? There is a prop

by m12k 6y ago

> can we create an independent non-profit which receives ownership, and whose charter aligns with actually treating as many people as possible? There is a proposal for such an entity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Impact_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Impact_Fund

reimertz 6y ago
Independent non-profits trying to fight for individuals in a capitalist-driven society seems to be doomed to fail. An depressing example; Insulin and how the inventors made sure to make the the process available to anyone; > The patent would not be used for any other purpose than to prevent the taking out of a patent by other persons. When the details of the method of preparation are published anyone would be free to prepare the extract, but no one could secure a profitable monopoly. How did that go? 1,000% price increase, accounting for inflation. (US numbers) Edit: Removed rant-driven generalization and miss-information regarding legal obligations. Thanks for checking me. I get to upset reading these things.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > where corporations and their boards are legally bound to maximize profit, ignoring morals for profit. Where is this true? It’s not even a definable legal standard.
  - reimertz 6y ago
    You are definitely correct and thanks for pointing it out. Generalizations and miss-information doesn't help at all. I obviously need to go out for a walk before I comment on these type of news. It's super exciting but also extremely depressing since the ones who'd need this the most likely wont afford it.
    - peytn 6y ago
      The FDA approves ~40 drugs a year. If you want 40 new drugs a year, it unfortunately will cost somebody something to coordinate the large number of professionals over many years required by a modern development effort. Few drugs have been developed successfully on good intentions. I find excitement in the fact that we have found a way to get new treatments and cures. Other systems have been tried that weren’t so successful at pumping out new tech.
      - m12k 6y ago
        Could you elaborate a bit about which other systems have been tried, that weren't as successful?
        peytn 6y ago
        I’m not familiar and it’s a complex topic. My knowledge comes from following the reforms in China and picking up bits and pieces of history. The overarching impression I’ve gotten is that a lot of ideas you can think of have been tried before in some capacity. The USSR had a Ministry of Medical Industry and I think Japan might have gone with a bounty model? You can probably find more info. Where everything falls over is that it’s just such a long journey from point A to B, where A is “a chemist has found something” and B is “an entire patient population is taking the drug.” There are a lot more steps than you’d think, and any alternative system needs to do well at each step due to the wildly varying incentives between participants. As a toy thought experiment not based on real-world events, suppose the government has just paid a $500 million bounty for new Drug X that otherwise wouldn’t have been developed. The government now owns Drug X. Okay, great. But doctors aren’t prescribing it. So the government creates a Ministry for Doctor Education that tells clinicians what to prescribe. But the Ministry for Doctor Education develops its own goals and forgets that it’s supposed to help out the pharma bounty program in marketing new drugs. In the meantime, the government is outbid in manufacturing Drug X, and its contracted manufacturers are exporting Drug X overseas, so the government nationalizes the manufacturers. But then the manufacturers forget that they’re supposed to work on novel drugs and decide only to take on low-risk work. Etc. etc. It just empirically works to have a tech transfer model where a set of entities gets rich by taking a drug on the entire journey into the bodies of thousands/millions of patients.

by m12k 6y ago

reimertz 6y ago

Independent non-profits trying to fight for individuals in a capitalist-driven society seems to be doomed to fail. An depressing example; Insulin and how the inventors made sure to make the the process available to anyone; > The patent would not be used for any other purpose than to prevent the taking out of a patent by other persons. When the details of the method of preparation are published anyone would be free to prepare the extract, but no one could secure a profitable monopoly. How did that go? 1,000% price increase, accounting for inflation. (US numbers) Edit: Removed rant-driven generalization and miss-information regarding legal obligations. Thanks for checking me. I get to upset reading these things.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> where corporations and their boards are legally bound to maximize profit, ignoring morals for profit. Where is this true? It’s not even a definable legal standard.
- reimertz 6y ago
  You are definitely correct and thanks for pointing it out. Generalizations and miss-information doesn't help at all. I obviously need to go out for a walk before I comment on these type of news. It's super exciting but also extremely depressing since the ones who'd need this the most likely wont afford it.
  - peytn 6y ago
    The FDA approves ~40 drugs a year. If you want 40 new drugs a year, it unfortunately will cost somebody something to coordinate the large number of professionals over many years required by a modern development effort. Few drugs have been developed successfully on good intentions. I find excitement in the fact that we have found a way to get new treatments and cures. Other systems have been tried that weren’t so successful at pumping out new tech.
    - m12k 6y ago
      Could you elaborate a bit about which other systems have been tried, that weren't as successful?
      - peytn 6y ago
        I’m not familiar and it’s a complex topic. My knowledge comes from following the reforms in China and picking up bits and pieces of history. The overarching impression I’ve gotten is that a lot of ideas you can think of have been tried before in some capacity. The USSR had a Ministry of Medical Industry and I think Japan might have gone with a bounty model? You can probably find more info. Where everything falls over is that it’s just such a long journey from point A to B, where A is “a chemist has found something” and B is “an entire patient population is taking the drug.” There are a lot more steps than you’d think, and any alternative system needs to do well at each step due to the wildly varying incentives between participants. As a toy thought experiment not based on real-world events, suppose the government has just paid a $500 million bounty for new Drug X that otherwise wouldn’t have been developed. The government now owns Drug X. Okay, great. But doctors aren’t prescribing it. So the government creates a Ministry for Doctor Education that tells clinicians what to prescribe. But the Ministry for Doctor Education develops its own goals and forgets that it’s supposed to help out the pharma bounty program in marketing new drugs. In the meantime, the government is outbid in manufacturing Drug X, and its contracted manufacturers are exporting Drug X overseas, so the government nationalizes the manufacturers. But then the manufacturers forget that they’re supposed to work on novel drugs and decide only to take on low-risk work. Etc. etc. It just empirically works to have a tech transfer model where a set of entities gets rich by taking a drug on the entire journey into the bodies of thousands/millions of patients.