3 ms·
I do like the utilitarian approach, I just think sometimes you need to look outside the box of do A or don’t do A. If the only options were pay for the treatmen
by elil17 4y ago
I do like the utilitarian approach, I just think sometimes you need to look outside the box of do A or don’t do A. If the only options were pay for the treatment or don’t, then Ireland might be making the right call by not paying for it.
Ireland could simply let a local company violate the drug patents. A country like the UK could impose conditions such as profit caps on pharmaceutical companies who base their work on publicly funded research. We could reduce the length of drug patents. There are many, many options besides “role over and let pharma companies charge $4 million/treatment when it costs them $1 million.”
- ericd 4y agoFrom the article: "Libmeldy is approved for use in the European Union and U.K., although the U.K.'s drug price watchdog initially rejected the therapy due to its hefty list price of £2.8 million ($3.4 million at today's exchange rates), BBC News (opens in new tab) reported in 2022. The therapy's manufacturer, Orchard Therapeutics, then offered Libmeldy to the NHS at a significant discount." So it does seem like they've already discounted it heavily.
- heavyset_go 4y ago"Significant discount" doesn't mean much when they're profiteering.
- ericd 4y agoDo you know that they ended up at a “profiteering” price point, or are you just assuming? And you do have to pay the team of researchers to go on a speculative hunt for a cure for a super low incidence disease, if you want them to do it again in the future. If you then turn around and seize the results, you’re not encouraging them to take the risk next time.