4 ms·
No... it is subsidizing. Developing drugs is expensive and high risk... there has to be a monetary mechanism to incentivize drug development and, right now, th
by cashsterling 4y ago
No... it is subsidizing. Developing drugs is expensive and high risk... there has to be a monetary mechanism to incentivize drug development and, right now, that is the promise of high profits, which mostly happens in the US. Therefore, US is carrying most of the incentivizing burden for pharma development.
The rate of innovation would slip for global drug development without the promise of high prices and blockbuster profits in the US market.
I have worked for a couple different Pharma companies, including those HQ'ed in Europe, and this is basically the situation. EU based Pharma companies make most of their profit in the US (almost every pharma company does).
There are other ways to incentivize drug development and/or defray the financial risk of development, of course... but this is situation today... has been for a long time.
- specialist 4y agoSet up a straight forward division of labor. Government serves as incubator, funding basic research, early stage trials, angel investor for promising teams. Govt then auctions rights to productize drugs. Industry pays govt a royalty. Modulate the royalty to incentivize desired outcomes. eg zero (or negative) royalty for malaria, 3000% for esteem remedies like viagra. Further, when there is no market demand for obvious public health priorities, govt contracts with industry, paying for mfg, distribution, marketing, training, whatever.