Amazing how much lifesaving meds are overpriced in the US

[kinoons]

Or you could choose this portion of the article:

There is little debate that public funding of basic science is a critical enabler of drug development 1, 2. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest government funder of biomedical research, and makes financial and practical contributions to all stages of it, including pre-clinical scientific investigations, translational medicine, and clinical trials. Detailed case studies reveal that public support has played at least some role in virtually all of the 26 most clinically and commercially significant drugs and drug classes approved over the past several decades

I could, but it really wasn’t relevant to the point I was making.

Okay, the NIH is the largest contributor of the portion of governmental money that is involved in the devlopement of between 15-25% of pharmaceuticals. It’s still a very small contribution compared to the rest of industry.

The overwhelming majority of pharma research is funded by industry, not directly by the government.

 

[Angelo Farina]

The argument that is always used is that if you limit the prices then it will reduce research. So some will argue that it’s better to have an expensive medicine than no medicine at all?

As already explained we do A LOT of research here in Europe. The ERC (European Research Council) spends billions each year funding research projects in the biomed field. This allows to fund research on terapies for rare diseases, where commercial investors would never invest money.
We also fund research on developing resolutive treatments: for-profit pharma companies are not interested in them, they prefer to find drugs which make the illness to become permanant (chronical), or to come back several times; not to get complete ailment with a single shot.
In conclusion a public health system and public funding of research must go together, ensuring more fair and ethical choices.
If we leave the big pharma companies to control everything, they will only pursue their income, not public health.
There is a reason if we have a life expectancy 5 years longer than in US...

 

[BlueTrin]

As already explained we do A LOT of research here in Europe. The ERC (European Research Council) spends billions each year funding research projects in the biomed field. This allows to fund research on terapies for rare diseases, where commercial investors would never invest money.
We also fund research on developing resolutive treatments: for-profit pharma companies are not interested in them, they prefer to find drugs which make the illness to become permanant (chronical), or to come back several times; not to get complete ailment with a single shot.
In conclusion a public health system and public funding of research must go together, ensuring more fair and ethical choices.
If we leave the big pharma companies to control everything, they will only pursue their income, not public health.
There is a reason if we have a life expectancy 5 years longer than in US...

@all, I am only representing the other side argument and answering @DandyDon ‘s question, even though it’s not really my own opinion. I think there are sectors where government intervention is needed because they are more likely to create imperfect markets/competition.

 

[kinoons]

As already explained we do A LOT of research here in Europe. The ERC (European Research Council) spends billions each year funding research projects in the biomed field. This allows to fund research on terapies for rare diseases, where commercial investors would never invest money.
We also fund research on developing resolutive treatments: for-profit pharma companies are not interested in them, they prefer to find drugs which make the illness to become permanant (chronical), or to come back several times; not to get complete ailment with a single shot.
In conclusion a public health system and public funding of research must go together, ensuring more fair and ethical choices.
If we leave the big pharma companies to control everything, they will only pursue their income, not public health.
There is a reason if we have a life expectancy 5 years longer than in US...

The notion that pharma will not research cures on their own isn’t true.

For example Abbvie, a US pharma, devloped Mavyret. This is used to cure Hepatitis C. As best as I can tell it was funded by Abbvie themselves.

Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir Mavyret - Treatment - Hepatitis C Online

www.hepatitisc.uw.edu

 

[Joneill]

There is a reason if we have a life expectancy 5 years longer than in US...

It’s because a huge (pun intended) % of the US population wants to stuff their face with crap food and not excercise. Then those same lardasses want to take a pill to address the resultant health issues versus changing their lifestyle. This is even causing a shortage on a diabetes drug as folks are using it off label to lose weight.

People are using life-saving diabetes drug Ozempic to lose weight. Now it's in short supply.

Many folks on cholesterol and high blood pressure meds are on them by their own choice - and then they complain about the price.

 

[noserider]

The US health system and pharma industry is broken, not sure how anyone can defend the status quo when the evidence is clear

Is our healthcare system broken? - Harvard Health

The US healthcare system is expensive, complicated, dysfunctional — and broken. The system needs a major overhaul, and the arguments for this fall into a few broad categories: high cos...

www.health.harvard.edu

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Oxford Univerity, the UK Government and Astra Zeneca got one of the first C19 vaccines out and did it on a not for profit basis but still allowed all staff and companies to get paid. This is a great example of an alternative to the traditional way of developing medicines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine

 

[BlueTrin]

The US health system and pharma industry is broken, not sure how anyone can defend the status quo when the evidence is clear

Is our healthcare system broken? - Harvard Health

The US healthcare system is expensive, complicated, dysfunctional — and broken. The system needs a major overhaul, and the arguments for this fall into a few broad categories: high cos...

www.health.harvard.edu

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Oxford Univerity, the UK Government and Astra Zeneca got one of the first C19 vaccines out and did it on a not for profit basis but still allowed all staff and companies to get paid. This is a great example of an alternative to the traditional way of developing medicines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine

It’s true but then it costed them a lot … if I remember correctly they were heavily punished by the markets…

 

[Joneill]

The US health system and pharma industry is broken, not sure how anyone can defend the status quo when the evidence is clear

Is our healthcare system broken? - Harvard Health

The US healthcare system is expensive, complicated, dysfunctional — and broken. The system needs a major overhaul, and the arguments for this fall into a few broad categories: high cos...

www.health.harvard.edu

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Oxford Univerity, the UK Government and Astra Zeneca got one of the first C19 vaccines out and did it on a not for profit basis but still allowed all staff and companies to get paid. This is a great example of an alternative to the traditional way of developing medicines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine

I’m not defending it and agree it needs to be overhauled - but socialized medicine and the much higher taxes that go with it are not the answer I want to see.

Folks need to also take accountability /responsibility for their own health as well - society should not have to subsidize the healthcare of people who knowingly make bad choices and don’t manage their own health. Sadly, that lack of personal responsibility is the case with many things in the US these days…

 

[Manatee Diver]

...

 

[noserider]

It’s true but then it costed them a lot … if I remember correctly they were heavily punished by the markets…

Astra Zeno a were punished by the markets after a prolonged pr campaign against their vaccine by organisations making profits from alternatives. AZ didn’t play the PR game as well