That Guy Who Price-Gouged AIDS Patients Did It to Kids with Kidney Disease

[Martinus]

Man, everyone's having a great time in this thread 

It's a "barrel" of "laughs".

[The Brain]

To me affordable medicine isn't a punchline.

[HVC]

"Tiny boats"

[PDH]

This thread sucks.  It needs more tits.

[Eddie Teach]

You're welcome.

[garbon]

Which only shows why drug research should be state funded. Selling balloons and lollypops make for a good business. Healthcare and education don't and shouldn't be.

Certainly. That might be a good option if we want to make sure R&D slows down dramatically.

[Eddie Teach]

Many of the best drugs were developed by academics anyway.

[Berkut]

But that's not the relevant question to address the point I was raising.  That is: if the US set prices like Canada does, would the drug companies be incentivized to develop new drugs?  I maintain they would not, at least not to the extent they are now.

So?

We could hypothesize a setup where they could be even MORE incentived than they are now as well! Maybe we could pass a law making it mandatory that any new drug invented be given perpetual patents.

Is maximizing their incentive the ONLY thing that is important? Of course not - we are looking for some reasonable balance between healthy incentives and a rational market that serves the needs of people. Given that drug manufacturing has well understood restrictions, barriers to entry, and a host of market pressures that have very little resemblance to a free market, a slavish loyalty to only one side of the free market dogma (the side that, again, results in the ultra rich becoming yet more ultra rich) seems rather silly.

So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

[The Brain]

Which only shows why drug research should be state funded. Selling balloons and lollypops make for a good business. Healthcare and education don't and shouldn't be.

Certainly. That might be a good option if we want to make sure R&D slows down dramatically.

In Sweden it appears that a lot of the Left's animosity is simple misogyny. Making money from sectors with lots of women at all levels (healthcare, education) is bad, but making money in more male-dominated fields (construction, technology) is good. If you ask them why it's OK to make a profit from building the hospital and the machines within it but not OK to make a profit from caring for patients you never get a good answer.

[garbon]

So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

[Berkut]

So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

The choice of example has no bearing on the argument.

[garbon]

By the by, some articles on retrospective and current estimated costing on bringing a drug to market.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/2/

One thing that the Forbes article touches on, is that we are seeing more pharma companies do partnerships or acquisitions of biotechs funded by VCs, as it simply doesn't make as much sense to spend what needs to be spent to start up a bevy of experimental drugs with the hope that one becomes a blockbuster.

[garbon]

So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

The choice of example has no bearing on the argument.

I think it does. You tried to choose an example a product that could be seen to have a frivolous purpose. I think it would be hard to classify most medicines (and even your very example) as represented by that.

The reality is that given the cost to develop products, there actually has to be a good incentive for companies to want to do so. Certainly, as you say, it isn't all about maximising profit for pharma companies but I think it would be a mistake to argue that R&D landscape would look similar if the US brought its healthcare spend in line with Canadian/European markets.

[Berkut]

So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

The choice of example has no bearing on the argument.

I think it does. You tried to choose an example a product that could be seen to have a frivolous purpose. I think it would be hard to classify most medicines (and even your very example) as represented by that.

Except that my point had nothing to do with the frivolity of the product.

The reality is that given the cost to develop products, there actually has to be a good incentive for companies to want to do so. Certainly, as you say, it isn't all about maximising profit for pharma companies but I think it would be a mistake to argue that R&D landscape would look similar if the US brought its healthcare spend in line with Canadian/European markets.

Well, I am not making any such argument, so ok.

I am just refuting the blanket argument Yi is making that if some action will cause a decrease in incentives, that alone is good reason not to take it.

Like I said, I could come up with a dozen ways we can increase incentives for developing drugs - that doesn't mean that they are good ideas. And just because something might decrease the incentive, doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

[garbon]

Except that my point has nothing to do with the frivolity of the product.

Okay, then I've really no idea why you tacked that on at the end of your post.

Well, I am not making any such argument, so ok.

Well, I think it is an important component of the discussion being had and whether or not certain markets are getting 'free ridership.'

I am just refuting the blanket argument Yi is making that if some action will cause a decrease in incentives, that alone is good reason not to take it.

Like I said, I could come up with a dozen ways we can increase incentives for developing drugs - that doesn't mean that they are good ideas. And just because something might decrease the incentive, doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

Well, Yi can speak for himself but I didn't take him as saying that. On the other hand, I do think that if one is angling for the US to reduce drug spend - it would be well worth the time to look at what impact that decrease might have and what spend might be need to prevent a decline in R&D.

I'd also state that I think it very likely that such wasn't a critical issue when individual, smaller markets set about price controls as their spend wasn't as vital to whether R&D would have a substantial slow down.