3 ms·
For that, they could reward med companies with awards in trade for being able to license and produce the medication or tech. Ie 5 billion for a new drug, compan
by ianai 6y ago
For that, they could reward med companies with awards in trade for being able to license and produce the medication or tech. Ie 5 billion for a new drug, company can still produce and sell it, the state can produce and deliver it to citizens/medical providers without further restrictions from the company.
- simonh 6y agoSo again, you want to get the state into the product manufacturing business. Historically that really doesn’t work out very well. What makes you think this would be cheaper or more efficient than the private sector? Why not do it for other products? I’m not against the state being a service provider. In many cases this makes sense. I’m a Brit but even though I’m a conservative I support the NHS, it just works and is dramatically more efficient than the US model. Manufacturing is another matter though. State run manufacturing has a terrible track record over here, and in fact almost everywhere.
- ianai 6y agoIt’s more to act as a reward for developing things normal incentives wouldn’t otherwise fund. Ie companies love to develop long term treatments but actual, “one treatment” cures wouldn’t be developed as they’re not long term revenue streams. Other meds go undeveloped for similar reasons. If the government will reward development of such treatments then there’s the possibility to be massively rewarded for developing otherwise “unrewarded” treatments.