4 ms·

What the article says is that the shortage of vital generic drugs, such as cisplatin and carboplatin used in cancer treatment, primarily stems from the financia

What the article says is that the shortage of vital generic drugs, such as cisplatin and carboplatin used in cancer treatment, primarily stems from the financial struggles of the generic drug industry. A host of issues, including constant pressure to reduce prices, thin profit margins, and shifting focus towards more profitable high-priced drugs, have led manufacturers to cease production of many essential generics. Further complicating matters, oversight of production quality is challenging for overseas manufacturers, and a lack of contingency plans for sudden disruptions, as seen with the closure of the Intas Pharmaceuticals plant in India, exacerbates shortages. So, the complex problem spans across supply chain challenges, market dynamics, and regulatory shortfalls. I focused on the thin profit margins and the consequences.

bsder 3y ago
> What the article says is that the shortage of vital generic drugs, such as cisplatin and carboplatin used in cancer treatment, primarily stems from the financial struggles of the generic drug industry. Then perhaps the government should be building plants to produce these domestically as clearly they need to be a common good rather than subject to the free market, no? Or, perhaps, we shouldn't allow medical equipment and supplies to be manufactured overseas and imported as that results in cheap overseas manufacturers dumping product at prices sufficiently low that they will cut corners hoping the FDA doesn't catch them all the while driving out domestic suppliers? Or, perhaps, any company found to have imported drugs from a plant that won't pass FDA inspection needs to have its executives sitting in fucking jail so that US companies have a vested interest in directly inspecting their overseas plants? See, there are solutions ...
- codersfocus 3y ago
  The first one is a great idea. Nationalizing pharma is much simpler and better roi than trying to nationalize all of medicine. As pharma makes up half of medical spending, it is by far the lowest hanging fruit. Options 2 and 3 are wretched ideas. It’s the reason we have $100 insulin instead of $3. It’s also why the US has inferior treatments in certain areas. Logically the FDA kills X amount of people per year by hindering rapid and accessible adoptable of medicine. They save Y by hindering the adoption of bad medicine. In theory Y is higher than X, but I am skeptical if that is still true. I’d recommend you watch Dallas Buyers Club.
  - elcritch 3y ago
    Nationalizing all pharma would be a bad idea. It'd never pass congress either. However, medicare having say the ability to produce generic drugs if they're not being produced sufficiently might fly. Another would be Medicare a greeting to buy X amount of some drugs from non-profit manufacturer setup specifically just to produce generics. Though even Medicare being able to negotiate prices would be huge wins.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  I see. Well, if the government is going to fund treatment I think it should prioritize treatment for me. We can deal with the cancer patients later. I've got a bit of a cold right now. Once we've solved that we can spend on the cancer patients. Alternatively, less inflammatorily, the marginal dollar will provide more social utility if spent on buying tirzepatide and mass producing it. So let's do that first.

bsder 3y ago

> What the article says is that the shortage of vital generic drugs, such as cisplatin and carboplatin used in cancer treatment, primarily stems from the financial struggles of the generic drug industry. Then perhaps the government should be building plants to produce these domestically as clearly they need to be a common good rather than subject to the free market, no? Or, perhaps, we shouldn't allow medical equipment and supplies to be manufactured overseas and imported as that results in cheap overseas manufacturers dumping product at prices sufficiently low that they will cut corners hoping the FDA doesn't catch them all the while driving out domestic suppliers? Or, perhaps, any company found to have imported drugs from a plant that won't pass FDA inspection needs to have its executives sitting in fucking jail so that US companies have a vested interest in directly inspecting their overseas plants? See, there are solutions ...

codersfocus 3y ago
The first one is a great idea. Nationalizing pharma is much simpler and better roi than trying to nationalize all of medicine. As pharma makes up half of medical spending, it is by far the lowest hanging fruit. Options 2 and 3 are wretched ideas. It’s the reason we have $100 insulin instead of $3. It’s also why the US has inferior treatments in certain areas. Logically the FDA kills X amount of people per year by hindering rapid and accessible adoptable of medicine. They save Y by hindering the adoption of bad medicine. In theory Y is higher than X, but I am skeptical if that is still true. I’d recommend you watch Dallas Buyers Club.
- elcritch 3y ago
  Nationalizing all pharma would be a bad idea. It'd never pass congress either. However, medicare having say the ability to produce generic drugs if they're not being produced sufficiently might fly. Another would be Medicare a greeting to buy X amount of some drugs from non-profit manufacturer setup specifically just to produce generics. Though even Medicare being able to negotiate prices would be huge wins.
renewiltord 3y ago
I see. Well, if the government is going to fund treatment I think it should prioritize treatment for me. We can deal with the cancer patients later. I've got a bit of a cold right now. Once we've solved that we can spend on the cancer patients. Alternatively, less inflammatorily, the marginal dollar will provide more social utility if spent on buying tirzepatide and mass producing it. So let's do that first.