4 ms·

Or pharma could not make profit/pay dividends? That seems like a much bigger 'cost' than FDA paperwork (though trials are expensive)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
at_a_remove 6y ago
Instead of making a smart-ass comment, I was prompted by your reply to look. Some non-profit pharmas do exist, but it appears that they are largely focused on generics or orphan drugs. I have seen some press-release stuff on how some of them could work in drug discovery, but it was always a team-up with someone else, and I couldn't find what new drugs had actually made it to market from non-profit pharmas. I suppose the only way to really prove this one way or another would be to select the last thousand drugs to market globally, note the country of origin and the company, and whether or not they were for-profit or not. Perhaps build out on that -- how much did it cost to bring that to market? How many failed per pharma?
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  So two valid arguments to have: drug discovery, & whether 'market incentives' give us cheaper & more drugs. My main point is looking at this holistically profit is a huge % and a terrible incentive for both what drugs are pushed and trialed and how much they can gouge us to benefit their shareholders. Gilead is 79%... More than 2x apple. [1] That is ethically wrong. Government already funds (most seems like this research article sats? [2]) early stage research e.g. discovery. Then the drug companies take the best looking candidates but they have gross incentives to pick the most potential profit, not the most benefit to society (like HIV a so far lifetime disease where our lives are dependent on this medicine) - why pay to research a prodrug or big stage 3 trial on a drug you cant make money on. In terms of 'market incentive' on the manufacturing side manufacturing costs themselves are tiny [4] and if anything my intuition is it has a net negative effect on quality. these companies try to penny pinch and push the every lessoning government oversight to its limits & offshore production with dangerous JIT supply chains and single source failures. Plus Republicans refuse to allow the government to negotiate or 'interfere' with 'the market' in the name of 'market incentive' kudos to trump to buck the party though. and it also seems setting up a non-profit is currently hostile by the system our government has concocted because of pharma lobby & their ad persuasion $ [3] https://statista.com/statistics/473429/top-global-pharmaceutical-companies-gross-margin-values/ https://statista.com/statistics/473429/top-global-pharmaceut... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ https://waxmanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Nonprofit-Pharmaceutical-Companies-White-Paper.pdf https://waxmanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Nonp... https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000571 https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000571

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

at_a_remove 6y ago

Instead of making a smart-ass comment, I was prompted by your reply to look. Some non-profit pharmas do exist, but it appears that they are largely focused on generics or orphan drugs. I have seen some press-release stuff on how some of them could work in drug discovery, but it was always a team-up with someone else, and I couldn't find what new drugs had actually made it to market from non-profit pharmas. I suppose the only way to really prove this one way or another would be to select the last thousand drugs to market globally, note the country of origin and the company, and whether or not they were for-profit or not. Perhaps build out on that -- how much did it cost to bring that to market? How many failed per pharma?

dillondoyle 6y ago
So two valid arguments to have: drug discovery, & whether 'market incentives' give us cheaper & more drugs. My main point is looking at this holistically profit is a huge % and a terrible incentive for both what drugs are pushed and trialed and how much they can gouge us to benefit their shareholders. Gilead is 79%... More than 2x apple. [1] That is ethically wrong. Government already funds (most seems like this research article sats? [2]) early stage research e.g. discovery. Then the drug companies take the best looking candidates but they have gross incentives to pick the most potential profit, not the most benefit to society (like HIV a so far lifetime disease where our lives are dependent on this medicine) - why pay to research a prodrug or big stage 3 trial on a drug you cant make money on. In terms of 'market incentive' on the manufacturing side manufacturing costs themselves are tiny [4] and if anything my intuition is it has a net negative effect on quality. these companies try to penny pinch and push the every lessoning government oversight to its limits & offshore production with dangerous JIT supply chains and single source failures. Plus Republicans refuse to allow the government to negotiate or 'interfere' with 'the market' in the name of 'market incentive' kudos to trump to buck the party though. and it also seems setting up a non-profit is currently hostile by the system our government has concocted because of pharma lobby & their ad persuasion $ [3] https://statista.com/statistics/473429/top-global-pharmaceutical-companies-gross-margin-values/ https://statista.com/statistics/473429/top-global-pharmaceut... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ https://waxmanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Nonprofit-Pharmaceutical-Companies-White-Paper.pdf https://waxmanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Nonp... https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000571 https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000571