4 ms·

> Vertex Pharmaceuticals is not making its drug, Trikafta, available in poorer countries, where thousands of diagnosed patients stand to benefit. > The company

> Vertex Pharmaceuticals is not making its drug, Trikafta, available in poorer countries, where thousands of diagnosed patients stand to benefit. > The company is not trying to sell it, or allowing a local company to make it. Vertex is blocking potential generic competitors by seeking patents in numerous countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/health/cystic-fibrosis-drug-trikafta.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/health/cystic-fibrosis-dr... https://www.news24.com/you/news/local/this-johannesburg-woman-needs-trikafta-to-treat-her-cystic-fibrosis-and-shes-taking-on-a-us-medical-drug-giant-to-get-it-in-sa-20230320 https://www.news24.com/you/news/local/this-johannesburg-woma... Not to mention the price of $322 000 a year.

heywhatupboys 3y ago
how would you incentivize medicine discovery if not for commercial applications? not like communist countries are well known for groundbreaking new medicine...
- saberience 3y ago
  It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you but I had a childhood friend die last year from CF because he couldn't afford the medical treatments. He was using the various "public funding" sites to raise money but in the end it wasn't enough and he died. I don't know what the solution is as it's a complex issue... but seeing someone young (in their 30s) die from something preventable because they can't afford the drug is perhaps one of the most horrifying and dystopian things I've seen in my life and makes me worried for our future. One presumably where the rich can live 50 years longer than the "poors".
- amrocha 3y ago
  The incentive is saving lives. That's what the researchers are in it for. The research is in large part publicly funded. Pharmaceutical companies are just charging rent on top of the discoveries. The best argument you can make is that private pharma competes to improve manufacturing processes, but you world also have that in a 100% public system from multiple countries competing/collaborating with each other.
  - heywhatupboys 3y ago
    Do you know how much it costs, and how many failed experiments, it takes to develop a drug?
    - amrocha 3y ago
      Like I said, that research is already publicly funded, and even if it wasn't it's always worth it to make sure people live longer as a country because more people means more resources to accomplish stuff with.
- samus 3y ago
  They can have their cut, but the swell thing to do would be allowing poorer countries to produce it for their domestic use.
  - heywhatupboys 3y ago
    Why stop at medicine? Why does anyone get to have enforcable patents in "poor countries", make a profit, etc. etc. Do you also know people can buy the medicine in "poor " countries for free then, and just ship it back to the "non poor"?
    - samus 3y ago
      What a ridiculously statement. Medicine is never for free. Best case is you have public health insurance, which spreads the cost across the taxpayers, or generic versions that cost less. The problem you probably mean can be avoided by giving the license to selected companirs only, and gating access to the drug through healthcare providers.
hackernewds 3y ago
Do not read too much into the sensationalist pricing. No individual is paying that much. Insurance is billed that rate, and they do not owe that much ultimately either.
- samus 3y ago
  Such sensational prices eventually rain down on those paying for insurance though. In case of private insurance, it increases premiums. In case of public insurance, the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

heywhatupboys 3y ago

how would you incentivize medicine discovery if not for commercial applications? not like communist countries are well known for groundbreaking new medicine...

saberience 3y ago
It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you but I had a childhood friend die last year from CF because he couldn't afford the medical treatments. He was using the various "public funding" sites to raise money but in the end it wasn't enough and he died. I don't know what the solution is as it's a complex issue... but seeing someone young (in their 30s) die from something preventable because they can't afford the drug is perhaps one of the most horrifying and dystopian things I've seen in my life and makes me worried for our future. One presumably where the rich can live 50 years longer than the "poors".
amrocha 3y ago
The incentive is saving lives. That's what the researchers are in it for. The research is in large part publicly funded. Pharmaceutical companies are just charging rent on top of the discoveries. The best argument you can make is that private pharma competes to improve manufacturing processes, but you world also have that in a 100% public system from multiple countries competing/collaborating with each other.
- heywhatupboys 3y ago
  Do you know how much it costs, and how many failed experiments, it takes to develop a drug?
  - amrocha 3y ago
    Like I said, that research is already publicly funded, and even if it wasn't it's always worth it to make sure people live longer as a country because more people means more resources to accomplish stuff with.
samus 3y ago
They can have their cut, but the swell thing to do would be allowing poorer countries to produce it for their domestic use.
- heywhatupboys 3y ago
  Why stop at medicine? Why does anyone get to have enforcable patents in "poor countries", make a profit, etc. etc. Do you also know people can buy the medicine in "poor " countries for free then, and just ship it back to the "non poor"?
  - samus 3y ago
    What a ridiculously statement. Medicine is never for free. Best case is you have public health insurance, which spreads the cost across the taxpayers, or generic versions that cost less. The problem you probably mean can be avoided by giving the license to selected companirs only, and gating access to the drug through healthcare providers.

hackernewds 3y ago

Do not read too much into the sensationalist pricing. No individual is paying that much. Insurance is billed that rate, and they do not owe that much ultimately either.

samus 3y ago
Such sensational prices eventually rain down on those paying for insurance though. In case of private insurance, it increases premiums. In case of public insurance, the taxpayer has to foot the bill.