4 ms·

We need an alternative mechanism to fund medical research. Granting artificial monopolies aka patents isn't cutting it, and it's getting highly unethical. Give

by nova 13y ago

We need an alternative mechanism to fund medical research. Granting artificial monopolies aka patents isn't cutting it, and it's getting highly unethical. Given that what we currently have isn't a free-market approach at all I wonder why we couldn't just fund it directly, via taxes. The cost could be shared between countries AND the research could be directed. The companies could be pure R/D labs, leaving the manufacturing to others.

DennisP 13y ago
One group that would benefit from cheap patent-free drugs is health insurers. It would probably be worthwhile for them to fund development, except they have a public goods problem. Insurers who didn't contribute could freeload off those who did. Recognizing that, Bernie Sanders introduced a bill a couple years back, taxing insurers for patent-free drug development. To keep the government from picking research projects (which it tends to do very conservatively), it would fund prizes instead of funding research directly. http://boingboing.net/2011/05/27/bernie-sanders-intro.html http://boingboing.net/2011/05/27/bernie-sanders-intro.html
- pravda 13y ago
  >One group that would benefit from cheap patent-free drugs is health insurers. Um...exactly the opposite. Under the ACA "the minimum percentage of premium health plans must spend on health care is 85 percent for large groups and 80 percent for small groups and individual policyholders." So, if an insurance company spends $65,000 on a drug, they get 65k/.85 or $76,470 in premiums, earning $11,470 in profit. If the drug only cost $10,000 the profit would just be $1,764. The more expensive drugs are, the more money health insurers make. Health insurers are harmed by cheap patent-free drugs.
  - DennisP 13y ago
    Hmm. Hadn't updated my view to account for the ACA. That could be a problem for healthcare costs in general, in markets where competition among insurance companies is limited. I bet we end up changing that provision sooner or later.
  - refurb 13y ago
    You're completely ignoring the other half of the insurance business which is selling plans to employers and individuals. Insurance companies can't just raise premiums willy-nilly without incurring the wrath of the big employers. Every single insurance company director I've ever talked to HATES the current pricing of drugs.
fragsworth 13y ago
I think it's really hard to say. The efficiency provided by companies trying to make money can't be overlooked. They make every attempt to reduce costs and increase development speed, and it's possible that in the long run, things are better. Also, if research is publicly funded, it would probably tend to focus on whatever the public is more aware of. Public awareness of diseases doesn't do correlate well to the severity of the problem. For instance: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/ http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-muc... If the market wasn't given any incentives to perform research on its own, then I could see this problem becoming magnified.
- mixedbit 13y ago
  The thing is, are there really economical incentives for companies to find cheap and efficient cancer drug?
- nova 13y ago
  > They make every attempt to reduce costs and increase development speed, and it's possible that in the long run, things are better. My point is that research companies should focus on discovering how the human body works and reacts to different substances, not how to create the drug efficiently. Their output should be scientific knowledge (and we would pay them for that), not industrial processes. That can be left to manufacturing companies, operating in a mostly-free market (but with quality regulations) and all that. > Also, if research is publicly funded, it would probably tend to focus on whatever the public is more aware of. Public awareness of diseases doesn't do correlate well to the severity of the problem. True. But profitability isn't really the same as the severity or "ethical" importance either, and that's how things are today. Directly funding research is how things are done with particle physics for example.
- canvia 13y ago
  Companies are also motivated by profits. This can create a perverse incentive to focus on treatment methods and ignore prevention/cures. They might also focus more on problems that effect "rich" people (blood pressure, cholesterol, weight loss, depression) while ignoring things that kill many poor people like malaria.
Houshalter 13y ago
Why not both? Why can't we increase government funding without banning companies from doing their own research (or at least profiting from it?) It's very unlikely two labs would discover the exact same drug and then patent it so no one else can use it. And creating the maximum amount of investment in medical research seems like a good idea.

by nova 13y ago

DennisP 13y ago

One group that would benefit from cheap patent-free drugs is health insurers. It would probably be worthwhile for them to fund development, except they have a public goods problem. Insurers who didn't contribute could freeload off those who did. Recognizing that, Bernie Sanders introduced a bill a couple years back, taxing insurers for patent-free drug development. To keep the government from picking research projects (which it tends to do very conservatively), it would fund prizes instead of funding research directly. http://boingboing.net/2011/05/27/bernie-sanders-intro.html http://boingboing.net/2011/05/27/bernie-sanders-intro.html

pravda 13y ago
>One group that would benefit from cheap patent-free drugs is health insurers. Um...exactly the opposite. Under the ACA "the minimum percentage of premium health plans must spend on health care is 85 percent for large groups and 80 percent for small groups and individual policyholders." So, if an insurance company spends $65,000 on a drug, they get 65k/.85 or $76,470 in premiums, earning $11,470 in profit. If the drug only cost $10,000 the profit would just be $1,764. The more expensive drugs are, the more money health insurers make. Health insurers are harmed by cheap patent-free drugs.
- DennisP 13y ago
  Hmm. Hadn't updated my view to account for the ACA. That could be a problem for healthcare costs in general, in markets where competition among insurance companies is limited. I bet we end up changing that provision sooner or later.
- refurb 13y ago
  You're completely ignoring the other half of the insurance business which is selling plans to employers and individuals. Insurance companies can't just raise premiums willy-nilly without incurring the wrath of the big employers. Every single insurance company director I've ever talked to HATES the current pricing of drugs.

fragsworth 13y ago

I think it's really hard to say. The efficiency provided by companies trying to make money can't be overlooked. They make every attempt to reduce costs and increase development speed, and it's possible that in the long run, things are better. Also, if research is publicly funded, it would probably tend to focus on whatever the public is more aware of. Public awareness of diseases doesn't do correlate well to the severity of the problem. For instance: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/ http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-muc... If the market wasn't given any incentives to perform research on its own, then I could see this problem becoming magnified.

mixedbit 13y ago
The thing is, are there really economical incentives for companies to find cheap and efficient cancer drug?
nova 13y ago
> They make every attempt to reduce costs and increase development speed, and it's possible that in the long run, things are better. My point is that research companies should focus on discovering how the human body works and reacts to different substances, not how to create the drug efficiently. Their output should be scientific knowledge (and we would pay them for that), not industrial processes. That can be left to manufacturing companies, operating in a mostly-free market (but with quality regulations) and all that. > Also, if research is publicly funded, it would probably tend to focus on whatever the public is more aware of. Public awareness of diseases doesn't do correlate well to the severity of the problem. True. But profitability isn't really the same as the severity or "ethical" importance either, and that's how things are today. Directly funding research is how things are done with particle physics for example.
canvia 13y ago
Companies are also motivated by profits. This can create a perverse incentive to focus on treatment methods and ignore prevention/cures. They might also focus more on problems that effect "rich" people (blood pressure, cholesterol, weight loss, depression) while ignoring things that kill many poor people like malaria.

Houshalter 13y ago

Why not both? Why can't we increase government funding without banning companies from doing their own research (or at least profiting from it?) It's very unlikely two labs would discover the exact same drug and then patent it so no one else can use it. And creating the maximum amount of investment in medical research seems like a good idea.