4 ms·

They should at least mention that it raises the question: what good is having this technology if most people can't afford it or it's not more effective than tec

by Goladus 15y ago

They should at least mention that it raises the question: what good is having this technology if most people can't afford it or it's not more effective than technology available elsewhere? Shouldn't we care more about making existing technology more affordable and effective rather than chase the latest technology gizmos? They're separate questions. In many cases, the best way to make technology more affordable is to improve the technology. Furthermore, developing new treatments where none existed before might make healthcare seem more expensive but in fact it's a flawed comparison. The cost before the treatment existed was essentially infinite. In some ways, better insurance can actually aggravate the situation, because existing drug companies have no real incentive to do serious innovation. They're already collecting enormous revenues from prescriptions and would probably just as soon not have any technology disrupt that model.

derleth 15y ago
> existing drug companies have no real incentive to do serious innovation This is just massively ignorant. Who do you think funds drug research now? Not just the initial 'this substance looks kind of interesting', but 'we have to get this specific drug from the concept stage through FDA approval'.
- Goladus 15y ago
  Who do you think funds drug research now? The NIH, nonprofit fundraising organizations like The Jimmy Fund, small companies like Advanced Cell Technology, and Venture Capital to biotech startups. Finally-- existing large drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Novartis; who issue grants, own large research labs and acquire startups much like IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft. But the last are heavily biased. Consider the study covered by this article: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/?p=88990&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=09_01_11%2520%281%29&utm_content= http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/?p=88990&utm_source=Silv... That study won't result in technological innovation. That study will result in health insurance policies more likely to cover sleeping pills. Funded by Merck and Sanofi-Aventis, who sell sleeping pills.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > existing large drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Novartis OK, you aren't as dumb as I thought you were. Some people claim that drug companies do no research, the public sector does all of it, and Big Pharma (a big 'I'm-a-moron' catchphrase if I've ever heard one) steals or suppresses everything it can get its hands on. > But the last are heavily biased. Every field has its publication bias. Frankly, results announcing new things and going new places are more interesting than results confirming what we know or saying that the new thing isn't as interesting as we'd hoped after all. What's worse is trying to get science news from non-specialized news sources, like CNN or Fox. You might as well ask an overexcited six-year-old what's in the dark closet. Your sleeping pill study isn't even in the running for the thing most wrong with how we research and produce drugs in this country, let alone with how terribly, criminally negligent the FDA is in prosecuting the crazies who are bringing crap like reiki and homeopathy into hospitals and university programs (quackademic medicine).
    - Goladus 15y ago
      I admit I exaggerated, the point I wanted to make in the post that got downvoted was that health insurance doesn't reduce the costs of healthcare. Health insurance is a way to share the costs, that's it. Real cost reduction comes from improved technologies, healthier environments, and healthier behavior. I'm not saying there aren't other major issues with regards to the FDA and the expense and politics surrounding clinical trials, just that existing large companies are probably not going to innovate with substantially more success than a healthy startup and academic ecosystem.

by Goladus 15y ago

derleth 15y ago

> existing drug companies have no real incentive to do serious innovation This is just massively ignorant. Who do you think funds drug research now? Not just the initial 'this substance looks kind of interesting', but 'we have to get this specific drug from the concept stage through FDA approval'.

Goladus 15y ago
Who do you think funds drug research now? The NIH, nonprofit fundraising organizations like The Jimmy Fund, small companies like Advanced Cell Technology, and Venture Capital to biotech startups. Finally-- existing large drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Novartis; who issue grants, own large research labs and acquire startups much like IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft. But the last are heavily biased. Consider the study covered by this article: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/?p=88990&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=09_01_11%2520%281%29&utm_content= http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/?p=88990&utm_source=Silv... That study won't result in technological innovation. That study will result in health insurance policies more likely to cover sleeping pills. Funded by Merck and Sanofi-Aventis, who sell sleeping pills.
- derleth 15y ago
  > existing large drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Novartis OK, you aren't as dumb as I thought you were. Some people claim that drug companies do no research, the public sector does all of it, and Big Pharma (a big 'I'm-a-moron' catchphrase if I've ever heard one) steals or suppresses everything it can get its hands on. > But the last are heavily biased. Every field has its publication bias. Frankly, results announcing new things and going new places are more interesting than results confirming what we know or saying that the new thing isn't as interesting as we'd hoped after all. What's worse is trying to get science news from non-specialized news sources, like CNN or Fox. You might as well ask an overexcited six-year-old what's in the dark closet. Your sleeping pill study isn't even in the running for the thing most wrong with how we research and produce drugs in this country, let alone with how terribly, criminally negligent the FDA is in prosecuting the crazies who are bringing crap like reiki and homeopathy into hospitals and university programs (quackademic medicine).
  - Goladus 15y ago
    I admit I exaggerated, the point I wanted to make in the post that got downvoted was that health insurance doesn't reduce the costs of healthcare. Health insurance is a way to share the costs, that's it. Real cost reduction comes from improved technologies, healthier environments, and healthier behavior. I'm not saying there aren't other major issues with regards to the FDA and the expense and politics surrounding clinical trials, just that existing large companies are probably not going to innovate with substantially more success than a healthy startup and academic ecosystem.