4 ms·
>Personally, I think its inevitable that there is going to be some form of nationalization for a protected class of life-saving medication. Wouldn't it make se
by Aerroon 2y ago
>Personally, I think its inevitable that there is going to be some form of nationalization for a protected class of life-saving medication.
Wouldn't it make sense for governments to just run their own drug manufacturing company? All the drugs from expired parents are free game.
- jstanley 2y agoIt might do if they had a chance of running them efficiently.
- alan-hn 2y agoYea its a shame that public services get undermined and underfunded at every turn
- coretx 2y agoPatents are a monopoly. Efficient resource allocation is therefore impossible.
- toast0 2y agoYou could concentrate on patent expired drugs that cost the most on an annual usage basis. Yeah, that leaves out the newest meds, but you'd still make a dent, and every year, you get cooler stuff to make that's already been market tested.
- coretx 2y agoNo, because patients deserve the best or most effective drug, not the cheapest. Unless you'd like to put a price on human life that is. Also, meds don't hit the market before they are tested... Testing meds is part of the resource allocation problems because cheap & effective off-label use won't be researched & tested because there is not enough money to be made...
- alan-hn 2y agoTell that to the insurance companies that keep denying my meds
- kwhitefoot 2y ago> Unless you'd like to put a price on human life that is. If you have some magical formula that would avoid doing I'm sure that NICE would love to hear from you. https://www.nice.org.uk/ https://www.nice.org.uk/
- Aerroon 2y agoThe best or most effective isn't always in consideration. At least outside of the US, you get what has been approved for care and only if it's not too cost prohibitive. If governments were making their own generic drugs and sold them at cost then it would help avoid situations like Martin Shkreli. The drug wasn't protected by a patent, it's just that nobody else produced that drug. In my opinion this seems like a reasonable thing for governments to do. Also, the best treatments aren't always available in this first place. Eg (at least a few years ago, don't know today) Adderall was illegal as a treatment here. Some EU countries, until recently, even treated methylphenidate like that.
- fragmede 2y ago> Unless you'd like to put a price on human life that is. It's been put at about $10 million, for the purposes of EPA regulations. Insurance companies have their own formula, from a couple hundred thousand into the millions, and healthcare users QUALYs - quality-adjusted life years, and those are priced at $50,000-$150,000.
- jajko 2y agoI'd say non-optimized government corporation running on cca 0 profit churning out safe generics is still a massive good for all mankind, its type of inefficiency we can all somehow live with, compared to usual governmental fubars left and right. Triple that in places like US (not for fubars but the costs).
- coretx 2y agoThe WTO/TRIPS treaty already allows for governments to issue compulsory licenses in case of a national emergency. This also explains why some firms where so "nice" during the pandemic, as they feared it. See https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/public_health_faq_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/public_health_f... for details. Obviously, it does not suffice but at least it's something.
- brobdingnag_pp 2y agoAnd now it would be a political issue which drugs get manufactured for cheap and for whom. You can probably see how that would go in corrupted countries (i.e. all of them)
- Aerroon 2y agoMaybe you could set in place criteria based on how much the drugs are used and how many competing manufacturers there are and go based on that.
- brobdingnag_pp 2y agoSo now the politicians families own drug corporations and get preferential treatment. We have reached USA levels of corruption.