The Coronavirus thread

I guess there can be exceptions, but then the cost is probably in the recovery time, or rehab if not in the other things.

I read that a drug that successfully makes it to market must bring in a billion dollars to be profitable. Few drugs make it to market so the ones that do must carry all the costs of the unsuccessful drugs for the company to make money. If it is a drug to treat a common chronic disease and you need to take it continuously millions of doses will be sold and it doesn't have to cost much. If it a one shot and your cured or a very rare disease then few doses are sold and they need to be sold for much more. This is why there is not much incentive for the drug companies to come up with new antibiotics. You only need them occasionally and it is a week or two and done with the drug.

Quote: kenarman

I read that a drug that successfully makes it to market must bring in a billion dollars to be profitable. Few drugs make it to market so the ones that do must carry all the costs of the unsuccessful drugs for the company to make money. If it is a drug to treat a common chronic disease and you need to take it continuously millions of doses will be sold and it doesn't have to cost much. If it a one shot and your cured or a very rare disease then few doses are sold and they need to be sold for much more. This is why there is not much incentive for the drug companies to come up with new antibiotics. You only need them occasionally and it is a week or two and done with the drug.

My own pharmacist told me there is no incentive for drug companies to work on all the relatively cheap and easy to get materials, like local plant life, if there isn't at least some involved process in engineering it chemically. If you can swallow, or brew it, as is, there's just no money in even studying it.

It's too bad really.

Quote: rxwine

My own pharmacist told me there is no incentive for drug companies to work on all the relatively cheap and easy to get materials, like local plant life, if there isn't at least some involved process in engineering it chemically. If you can swallow, or brew it, as is, there's just no money in even studying it.

It's too bad really.

If the government eventually starts paying for almost all drugs it would probably make sense for the government to do the R&D and own the patents. They could then just put the manufacturing of it our to tender. Not sure how you make that work on a world wide basis though with hundreds of countries.

Quote: kenarman

If the government eventually starts paying for almost all drugs it would probably make sense for the government to do the R&D and own the patents. They could then just put the manufacturing of it our to tender. Not sure how you make that work on a world wide basis though with hundreds of countries.

If it takes a billion to break even on a drug, we are printing a trillion per month right now ostensibly because of a virus. For one month of printing we could have a thousand new drugs at a billion each.

And then another part of my plan for cheaper health care, is to pay for the insurance for Dr's, and cap medical settlements for mistakes. Peer review mistakes, and after 3 screw ups, make changes.

And I've mentioned before, let the government pay for the last two years of Dr. school. And make specialty's easy to afford for Dr's that want to specialize.

I think the government already pays for much of the research?

Quote: rxwine

If that worked there should be examples somewhere in the world. I don't think there is.

I don't think you can get healthcare down to affordable prices in a free market.

When you need a procedure that's expensive, it's likely both rare and complicated. Two things that don't bring cheap prices in material, often need specialized equipment and can't be done on cheap skills.

I agree, but that's why I'm suggesting you could have a specialized type of insurance for the last thing. Didn't get the insurance and don't have the cash, you die, that's just how it is. If there's not a market for the highly-specialized treatment, then the treatment won't be created/manufactured and they'll die anyway. Life is the #1 cause of death, you know. Can't be prevented. Most of the treatment expenses for lots of folks, in the business world, you would refer to as, "Sunk costs," which is to say that the cost of it is never going to be made up.

I'm not even going to have the money wasted on myself if I get something extremely serious and costly; I'm just going to swallow a bullet. That's the cheapest pill there is and it cures everything.

And, the states can, of course, do what they want...as long as they can find a way to self-sustain it.

Quote: kenarman

I read that a drug that successfully makes it to market must bring in a billion dollars to be profitable. Few drugs make it to market so the ones that do must carry all the costs of the unsuccessful drugs for the company to make money. If it is a drug to treat a common chronic disease and you need to take it continuously millions of doses will be sold and it doesn't have to cost much. If it a one shot and your cured or a very rare disease then few doses are sold and they need to be sold for much more. This is why there is not much incentive for the drug companies to come up with new antibiotics. You only need them occasionally and it is a week or two and done with the drug.

Another thing is because the FDA requires not only safety, but also efficacy, for a drug to get FDA approval. In other words, you essentially have to know that the drug is going to do what it's supposed to do before it gets to the point of public availability. At one point, the FDA was only concerned with safety, (it won't kill you) not efficacy, on the notion that if the drug didn't work; it would quickly find its own way off of the market. In the meantime, they at least get to make some money off the one that's not necessarily as effective as one might otherwise like.

Another thing they have to worry about is all of the potential lawsuits. I don't watch much TV and already know you can't go ten minutes without some lawsuit or another against some drug manufacturer. It should just be generally understood that taking the drug itself is a risk, so then the person should decide if taking the drug and taking on the risk beats the alternative...which if the alternative is certain death...I suspect most people would go ahead and take the drug.

Quote: Mission146

....I'm not even going to have the money wasted on myself if I get something extremely serious and costly; I'm just going to swallow a bullet. That's the cheapest pill there is and it cures everything.

You will probably just pass it.

Quote: kenarman

If the government eventually starts paying for almost all drugs it would probably make sense for the government to do the R&D and own the patents. They could then just put the manufacturing of it our to tender. Not sure how you make that work on a world wide basis though with hundreds of countries.

That has been tried.

Quote: petroglyph

Much R&D for medicines is paid for by taxpayers, then production is sent to Pharm company's, who make a killing on it.

My story.... I was hired by a medical device manufacturer (I think a very fair analogy to "Big Pharma") to test a new product they were developing for keeping patients warm during surgery. The present standard is a 'blower' that works fine, but some believe it can increase infections. Long story short, I was the doctor recruiting patients and doing the cases, and giving the company the raw data. I also helped in the design (no way a doctor would like something that big..., or can't be in OR unless it can attach to a pole, or stuff like that). It turned out the product was NOT better than the existing technology, and never became marketable. My guess was that they spent 3 million dollars on it, and got ZERO in return. The same thing happens with drug development. How many lomdesivirs and gipdesivirs failed before Remdesivir was a success? Sure, if you solely look at the most successful drugs, the companies 'make a killing' on it. That's not a fair way to judge it.