5 ms·
This is the frustrating part of these conversations because people act like you can just swap one country for another like they are interchangeable. They aren’t
by bumby 2y ago
This is the frustrating part of these conversations because people act like you can just swap one country for another like they are interchangeable. They aren’t.
For example, other countries get to keep drug costs low because the companies that make them get huge profits in the US. If the US charges the same, the profits and R&D also dry up unless you set up another system.
Also, the US tends to rely on extreme measures more often very late in life. I’ve heard (but can’t confirm) this drives a huge proportion of costs. This is rooted in cultural ideas of the sanctity of life. You can’t just pull the rug out unless you’re prepared for backlash about “death panels” and such.
There’s a lot of nuance and the “just do what other countries do” misses it completely.
- 8note 2y agoNew drug funding tends to come from the US government already. Drug company R&D looks more like "what patents can we buy out and jack the prices in?"
- nradov 2y agoThat's simply misinformation. The US government funds some of the basic research that produces candidate molecules. But the vast majority of the cost in drug development comes in phase 3 human clinical trials. Almost all of that is paid for by pharmaceutical companies, and many trials fail.
- biztos 2y agoAt least according to ChatGPT, over 40% fail. If true that’s surprising, since you don’t start a Phase 3 unless a lot of very smart people are convinced it’s going to work, and lab results (including human) back that up.
- coldpie 2y agoChatGPT is not a source.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThat's not the biggest cost. > Seven of the 10 largest drugmakers by revenue in 2020 spent more money on selling and marketing existing drugs than on research and development for new drugs, according to an analysis published Oct. 27 by America's Health Insurance Plans. > GlaxoSmithKline spent $15 billion on sales and marketing in 2020 compared with $7 billion on research and development. Bayer spent $18 billion on sales and marketing compared with $8 billion for research and development. Johnson & Johnson spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, compared with $12 billion on research and development. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/top-10-pharma-companies-spent-more-on-sales-marketing-than-r-d-in-2020.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/top-10-pharma...
- bumby 2y agoI think this is missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that pharma spends a lot on marketing and that this cost is passed on to consumers. Rather, the point being made is that the US system disproportionately funds pharma R&D. Meaning, if the idea is to have parity with other countries, at least one of several options needs to happen: 1) other countries start funding more R&D, 2) other countries drug prices increase, 3) we accept that less R&D occurs, or 4) we find alternative sources for funding R&D. Glib answers like "just do what other countries do" don't address any of that.