4 ms·
I’d just change the “or we won’t use it” to “or your patents go away.”
by elil17 4y ago
I’d just change the “or we won’t use it” to “or your patents go away.”
- pc86 4y agoAnd then instead of reading "that atidarsagene autotemcel not be considered for reimbursement unless cost effectiveness can be improved relative to existing treatment" today, we would have read something like "current regulatory environment precludes research and development expenditures into atidarsagene autotemcel" in some biopharm prospectus a decade ago. You can't have it both ways and preventing people from making money means, not surprisingly, they will be very hesitant to spend money researching those areas.
- elil17 4y agoBut you can have it both ways because most rare disease research is already funded by governments and nonprofits
- whiddershins 4y agoThis is something people say over and over, I’m not sure of the source. Even if it were true, turning a discovery into a distributable, replicable, intervention is the opposite of a trivial task. And yes, our lovely regulatory environment makes it enormously expensive to study drugs and treatment and to get them approved. Who knows how many lives have been lost by this. When people talk about for example university research driving technology, I think the practicalities of the real world … aka business aka living in 4dimensional reality … are inaccessible to them. They elide all these pesky details which represent like 98% of what it takes to actually do anything.
- refurb 4y agoSounds like a great way for people to just not invest in new therapies. "Hey, that's a nice life-saving treatment you spent $500M developing. It would be a shame if we just took it from you."
- concordDance 4y agoThe USA really doesn't like it when you ignore their patents. Expect tarrifs, sanctions and trade secrets so you won't be able to reproduce future treatments.