3 ms·
I'm not sure we can accurately predict what would happen, but a few thoughts: * Clearly, this would hugely disrupt the current pharma business model. * One ob
by mft_ 4y ago
I'm not sure we can accurately predict what would happen, but a few thoughts:
* Clearly, this would hugely disrupt the current pharma business model.
* One obvious initial response would be to limit investment into research. However, this isn't a viable long-term solution, given research is the lifeblood of continuing success in the industry. It would therefore increase pressure for regulatory reform - essentially to reverse the trend of recent years, and make medicines easier/quicker (and therefore cheaper) to develop.
* Other typical business-leader responses: cost-cutting, job losses, mergers, etc.
* Pressure on developed countries outside the US to pay higher prices
* Longer-term, it might disrupt the current model of drug research funding altogether. The industry is already at a point where development of many drugs is close to unprofitable, and that trend is worsening as regulators become ever-more conservative, and of course with each new successful drug, the next one becomes progressively more difficult to find. The change we're discussing might well mean that drug discovery and development is simply no longer an area where profit can be reliably made - and as such shareholders remove their investments, and pharma companies would merge/struggle/fold. Faced with this, governments and regulators would presumably need to work together to find ways to continue the funding of drug development - and make up a overall shortfall in research and development funding similar to the GDP of a decent-sized country.
(To be clear, I'm not disagreeing at all that the US is effectively supporting the industry - just the term subsidy in the way it was used.)
- leaflets2 4y agoMaybe new drug development and investments world move to outside the US, where salaries are lower, And development would continue there. I'm guessing that'd be the best for everyone except for the profit maximizing pharma companies in the US
- pas 4y agodrug development happens all around the world already, a lot of it happens in the US because of the NIH (which is good, but could be a lot lot better: https://newscience.org/nih/ https://newscience.org/nih/)
- leaflets2 4y agoYes I know there's outside the US, I had in mind that (some of) the development in the US could move abroad Didn't know about NHI.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoKeep in mind that development location isn't tied to sale location. For example, companies located in EU already develop drugs for the US, and some may not launch in EU or launch much later.
- pas 4y ago> and of course with each new successful drug, the next one becomes progressively more difficult to find citation needed > as regulators become ever-more conservative ... cough the simple problem is that the drugs that work very well are hard (eg. personalized gene therapy) and there whole healthy-industrial complex is not set up to solve hard problems, it's set up to sell treatments to the market, keep the machine churning, buy promising new formulas from small research labs, do the larger trials, manage the FDA, market the shit out of those that make the cut, rework formulas to keep generics at bay, and so on. the other trivial problem is that no one wants to confront basic problems affecting health. (obesity comes to mind. nutritional studies are so underpowered it's laughable. also let's say mental health. tinkering with the brain always has the nasty side effect of oh what if the drug accidentally makes you feel funny/good instead of just not-miserable - see the weak results of the esketamine, also see how psychiatrists are afraid to use desoxyn [meth], because oh the paperwork & peer pressure.) note, I'm not saying that the current setup does not deliver results, and that your predictions are without merit. (they are realistic.) what I'm trying to make explicit is that the industry is already ripe for structural reform. (the easiest no-brainer would be to simply fast track drugs already approved by the EU EMA; tax waste spending [spending that is not R&D or manufacturing - eg. marketing/sales]; make the FDA approval process a lot more standardized and faster; start running publicly funded trials on drugs that are already prescribed by doctors but are not authorized to be marketed)
- s1artibartfast 4y ago>citation needed Look into eroom's law of drug development. There are a lot of papers on the subject. It describes R&D cost, which covers more than just discovery, but gets the point across. https://www.google.com/search?q=eroom%27s+law&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjX6srDy5v4AhVEMH0KHayeA1wQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=eroom%27s+law&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEBg6BggAEB4QBzoECAAQHlD6D1jlRmD6T2gAcAB4AIABvAGIAbAIkgEDMC43mAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=42WfYpftHsTg9AOsvY7gBQ&bih=791&biw=412&client=ms-android-motorola-rvo3&prmd=ivmn#imgrc=elIx1XT4_qzA0M https://www.google.com/search?q=eroom%27s+law&tbm=isch&ved=2...
- pas 4y ago