5 ms·

It seems to me that in certain industries profit motive doesn't mesh with the public good. Isn't there a need for a publicly funded pharmaceutical agency that

It seems to me that in certain industries profit motive doesn't mesh with the public good. Isn't there a need for a publicly funded pharmaceutical agency that develops drugs for the public good in an open source manner?

refurb 12y ago
Where would the money come from? Right now the NIH's budget is $30.1B. US pharmaceutical companies invest $48.5B in 2012. Note, that's only R&D expenditure, not all the capital costs (e.g. Pfizer spent $1B for a manufacturing unit in Ireland; the drug failed due to safety).
- waingake 12y ago
  Taxes obviously. I'd be happy to live in a society where medication research is based on public need instead of profit margin. A drug such as this would save money for the NHS or any other western countries public health system ( bar the USA ) in the long term.
  - refurb 12y ago
    There is nothing stopping the gov't from doing that right now. Unfortunately, most of the drug development efforts by public entities have had a really poor track record.
    - bluthru 12y ago
      >Unfortunately, most of the drug development efforts by public entities have had a really poor track record. Could you quantify this? Is it because they're tackling the very difficult diseases and not the low-hanging (profitable) fruit? The polio vaccine was developed with federal money and was provided for free as a result. There is no way the polio vaccine could have been done more efficiently if the private sector did it.
    - waingake 12y ago
      Oh yes I imagine the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't fight such a move at all, would breeze right in.
      - refurb 12y ago
        You talk about the gov't like it's powerless! You do realize that the US gov't extracted billions of dollars in concessions from the pharmaceutical industry during the Obamacare roll-out?
- Jedd 12y ago
  > Where would the money come from? Same place it does now - the end user. But the money would cover research, development, trials, data mining, treatment, etc. It would not be used to mislead medical practitioners, patients, or government officials. > Right now the NIH's budget is $30.1B. US pharmaceutical companies invest $48.5B in 2012. Note, that's only R&D expenditure, not all the capital costs ... US-centric may not be the best way to come at a discussion about health costs (no disrespect - just it's not typical in the world stage, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone that considers it best practice). How does that R&D component stack up against the industry's Sales and Marketing budget? (Hint - less than admirably.)
  - refurb 12y ago
    I think the US is a good example since most pharmaceutical R&D is done in the US. Also, the NIH has a pretty beefy budget. For other countries, the cost of running their on pharma companies would be much more burdensome. To answer your first point, you're saying that the cost of R&D would still be born by the end-user (patient). What's the benefit then if it's not saving money? If you think a gov't run company would not pull some of the same stuff the private ones do, I'd have you take a look at some of the corruption that goes on at public companies. A gov't run company might not be for-profit, but someone there has budgets and revenue numbers to meet. The motive to cut corners doesn't disappear when it's run by the gov't. And why shouldn't a pharma company have a sales and marketing budget? Do you think your doctor has time to sit down and analyze all of the clinical trial data? Getting in front of a doctor and touting the benefits of your drug sounds like a good thing to me. Sure, some sales reps use slimy tactics, but overall educating physicians doesn't sound like a bad thing.
    - __P 12y ago
      If it was not 'for-profit' and public. It could be shared more freely. Meaning you'd ideally have a global effort towards drug R&D. This would easily dwarf any number the current US pharmaceuticals invest, or the NIH budget. Advances would be shared and make the cost of an advance cheaper. Also if it were open (globally) countries could be the checks and balances for each other. And no, pharma don't need marketing. Marketing is always used to trick people into buying things, or to create brand awareness, it's never about the good of the recipient. Dr's could simply have a database where they look up drugs and supporting material (i.e pull information rather than push marketing).
- PeterisP 12y ago
  The money for drug development would come from the same budgets that currently pay for drug purchases - the manufacturing expenses are only a small fraction of what they pay now, and the remainder of those budgets should get shifted to R&D. Medicare alone spends something like $50B per year on drugs, add also Medicaid and other agencies (VA and such), and there you have an ability to invest comparable numbers as the pharma companies do currently.

refurb 12y ago

Where would the money come from? Right now the NIH's budget is $30.1B. US pharmaceutical companies invest $48.5B in 2012. Note, that's only R&D expenditure, not all the capital costs (e.g. Pfizer spent $1B for a manufacturing unit in Ireland; the drug failed due to safety).

waingake 12y ago
Taxes obviously. I'd be happy to live in a society where medication research is based on public need instead of profit margin. A drug such as this would save money for the NHS or any other western countries public health system ( bar the USA ) in the long term.
- refurb 12y ago
  There is nothing stopping the gov't from doing that right now. Unfortunately, most of the drug development efforts by public entities have had a really poor track record.
  - bluthru 12y ago
    >Unfortunately, most of the drug development efforts by public entities have had a really poor track record. Could you quantify this? Is it because they're tackling the very difficult diseases and not the low-hanging (profitable) fruit? The polio vaccine was developed with federal money and was provided for free as a result. There is no way the polio vaccine could have been done more efficiently if the private sector did it.
  - waingake 12y ago
    Oh yes I imagine the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't fight such a move at all, would breeze right in.
    - refurb 12y ago
      You talk about the gov't like it's powerless! You do realize that the US gov't extracted billions of dollars in concessions from the pharmaceutical industry during the Obamacare roll-out?
Jedd 12y ago
> Where would the money come from? Same place it does now - the end user. But the money would cover research, development, trials, data mining, treatment, etc. It would not be used to mislead medical practitioners, patients, or government officials. > Right now the NIH's budget is $30.1B. US pharmaceutical companies invest $48.5B in 2012. Note, that's only R&D expenditure, not all the capital costs ... US-centric may not be the best way to come at a discussion about health costs (no disrespect - just it's not typical in the world stage, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone that considers it best practice). How does that R&D component stack up against the industry's Sales and Marketing budget? (Hint - less than admirably.)
- refurb 12y ago
  I think the US is a good example since most pharmaceutical R&D is done in the US. Also, the NIH has a pretty beefy budget. For other countries, the cost of running their on pharma companies would be much more burdensome. To answer your first point, you're saying that the cost of R&D would still be born by the end-user (patient). What's the benefit then if it's not saving money? If you think a gov't run company would not pull some of the same stuff the private ones do, I'd have you take a look at some of the corruption that goes on at public companies. A gov't run company might not be for-profit, but someone there has budgets and revenue numbers to meet. The motive to cut corners doesn't disappear when it's run by the gov't. And why shouldn't a pharma company have a sales and marketing budget? Do you think your doctor has time to sit down and analyze all of the clinical trial data? Getting in front of a doctor and touting the benefits of your drug sounds like a good thing to me. Sure, some sales reps use slimy tactics, but overall educating physicians doesn't sound like a bad thing.
  - __P 12y ago
    If it was not 'for-profit' and public. It could be shared more freely. Meaning you'd ideally have a global effort towards drug R&D. This would easily dwarf any number the current US pharmaceuticals invest, or the NIH budget. Advances would be shared and make the cost of an advance cheaper. Also if it were open (globally) countries could be the checks and balances for each other. And no, pharma don't need marketing. Marketing is always used to trick people into buying things, or to create brand awareness, it's never about the good of the recipient. Dr's could simply have a database where they look up drugs and supporting material (i.e pull information rather than push marketing).
PeterisP 12y ago
The money for drug development would come from the same budgets that currently pay for drug purchases - the manufacturing expenses are only a small fraction of what they pay now, and the remainder of those budgets should get shifted to R&D. Medicare alone spends something like $50B per year on drugs, add also Medicaid and other agencies (VA and such), and there you have an ability to invest comparable numbers as the pharma companies do currently.