Goddamn you're dumb. By recusing himself he removed himself from the firing line. Having Trump upset that you recused yourself is much better than having him fire you because you're running an investigation into his campaign.
Note this: You haven't won a single point. I just refuse to contribute without receiving anything in return. You ask questions but you never seem to answer any. All of your comments ITT are about what I claimed, nothing about what you claimed.
Now you're ging up the thread. Move on.
chess. Your understanding of politics is . The optics of Donald firing his AG for running an investigation into his campaign would be ing disastrous.
I have. Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid.
This is demonstrably false. What questions have I not answered? You refuse to contribute when you have exhausted all of your ignorant lines of reasoning.
OP was a post. This diversion was an improvement.
You wish.
All this noise from you is just baseless assertion. Presidents have the right to fire cabinet positions. They do it all the time. Trump already fired the previous AG for refusing to honor his wishes. Since you like precedent so much, Nixon fired his AG because he refused to fire someone who was investigating the Watergate affair.
So then your position (that you've avoided actually stating) is that the pharmaceutical industry just accidentally happened upon the huge profits they rake in? So then they set out in philanthropic efforts that, for some odd reason, keep making money for them. All this talk about how free prescription meds have become, how easy it is to afford them especially if you're elderly and have a rare illness. Yeah, there's no profit motive in that industry. Surely you cannot be that ing stupid.I have. Your position on the profit motive driving innovation in modern pharmaceuticals is laughably stupid.
"The top-prospect school of R&D thinking--a rejection of a discredited effort at industrializing innovation--has taken firm hold of the entire industry. That was clear as Merck's new R&D chief Roger Perlmutter quickly seized on their cancer immunotherapy program for MK-3475, carefully setting it up for a star role as the company sets out to engineer big changes in its research group.
A single major blockbuster can go a long way to finding forgiveness among investors for a hundred smaller sins of execution. And the emphasis now is finding those stars and devoting substantial resources and special teams to hustle them along"
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/pos...ster-prospects
You are too ignorant of anything useful for anyone to actually ask your opinion, so you basically post like of of a hundred other ty alts on this forum who spend their forum time playing 1000 questions, ala Chumpdumper... "be specific".This is demonstrably false. What questions have I not answered? You refuse to contribute when you have exhausted all of your ignorant lines of reasoning.
Not to me, I've never learned anything from you I couldn't glean from watching any re eating boogers.OP was a post. This diversion was an improvement.
I wouldn't expect you to. Somehow you think I legitimize you because I talk to you.
You wish.
Last edited by DMC; 03-08-2017 at 02:47 AM.
Obviously there is no way to prove AG Sessions' intentions. You go on believing him choosing to recuse himself was a genius chess tactic to prevent him from having to investigate Trump and I'll believe he chose to recuse himself under mounting pressure stemming from the revelation that he had not disclosed his contacts with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearing. Anyone reading can decide which of the two arguments is more convincing. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
That's not my argument and I have stated my position. I summarized it in post 20 in this thread and went into more detail in the thread where we had this initial debate. You either have really poor reading comprehension or you're being intentionally dishonest. I tend to believe the latter.
Congratulations on your first compelling rebuttal. I present a counterpoint
...
The protease inhibitors were among the last of the truly revolutionary classes of medications to come from the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, almost all new medications have been variations of old medications with a slight improvement (if even that) or a new indication. Few new classes of medications, almost no medical miracles, nothing that has significantly changed the way we practice medicine has come from the pharmaceutical industry since the late nineties.
So how is it that an industry that gave us so many revolutionary, life saving wonder drugs in decades past is now reduced to peddling gimmicks and repeatedly recycling old ideas?
The “golden age of the pharmaceutical industry” was drawing to a close as early as 1990 when the pharmaceutical companies began to tire of new ideas. New ideas are always expensive and risky. Even the most brilliant sounding ideas often go nowhere when tested clinically.
This innovation fatigue had become so serious by the early 1990’s that Herceptin, the monoclonal antibody that first cured metastatic breast cancer, almost didn’t even get tested. In his book “The Emperor of All Maladies,” Siddhartha Mukherjee describes the difficulty Genentech scientists had convincing their executives to fund the testing of Herceptin after it had already been developed in 1990:
“… but Genentech was worried that pouring money into the development of another drug that failed would cripple the company’s finances. Chastened by the experience of others–”allergic to cancer” as one Genentech researcher described it– Genentech pulled funding away from most of its cancer projects.” (Page 418)
Herceptin had already been developed, but Genentech executives didn’t care. Testing to see if it worked risked wasting money and these executives were becoming very risk averse. Genentech executives weren’t alone in their risk aversion either. From 1995-1997 Novartis executives tried equally hard to kill Gleevec– another miracle drug that suppresses a deadly form of leukemia indefinitely–because they feared that the trials needed to clear Gleevec would cost too much (Page 436).
Fortunately, both Gleevec and Herceptin got the funding they needed and are now providing billions of dollars in revenue to the pharmaceutical companies that tried to kill them. They were among the last new ideas to get funding from the drug companies though. By the time Gleevec came on the market in 2000 the door had mostly shut on novel pharmaceutical research.
By 1990 the pharmaceutical industry knew they already had a lot of very effective products that were making them lots of money each year. They had patents that were generating billions of dollars a year and would continue to do so for many years to come. They also knew they could probably find a number of new uses for the classes of medications they already had. The most profitable course they saw at that point was to just coast; put no more funding into new foundational research and just keep pushing what was already working for them. That’s exactly what they did, and it worked!
The profits made by the pharmaceutical companies exploded over the last decade without them putting out any new products that were even remotely innovative. But that strategy can only work for a little while. Two decades after they shut the door on actual innovation the revenue from the old ideas is starting to run dry.
Figure 4: (From linked article above.) New medications released each successive year since 2001 by the pharmaceutical companies have been increasingly less popular.
So, we in the US continue to overpay for brand name prescription medications, but the pharmaceutical industry has given us almost no new important therapies in more than 15 years. A somewhat unexpected result of this is that, total pharmaceutical revenue has been nearly flat since 2010.
Figure 5: Total annual revenue for the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies since 2003.
You can see from the above graph that the total revenue from the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies has barely increased at all since 2010. It has actually dropped slightly since 2011 despite a more than 50% increase in the cost of brand name prescription drugs in the US since 2012.
What changed? A flood of Generic drugs came on the market.
Because there really is a market for generic drugs, we don’t pay any more for most generics than people in other countries. In 2003, most of the medications prescribed were still under patent. Today, the opposite is true. The effect is easy to see in the following graph, which shows the dramatic loss of revenue when the patent Bristol-Myers Squibb owned on Plavix expired.
Figure 6: Bristol-Myers Squibb lost their patent for Plavix in 2011 and, as you can see, that cost them over $6 billion a year in lost revenue from just the US.
Profit Without Innovation
The pharmaceutical companies haven’t been taking all of these patent losses lying down. They’ve ins uted a number of measures to help offset the amount they’ve been losing to lost patent protection:
1) They’ve fought very hard, and in every way they can, to delay the expiration of drug exclusivity whenever possible. This process is called “evergreening” a patent. For example, they can apply for a new indication for an old drug just prior to it’s patent expiration. They can change the delivery system for, say, an inhaler. They can alter the recommended doses of a drug by a small amount– they have a lot of tricks for maintaining exclusivity and these tricks can often delay generic compe ion for several years.
2) In 2013 the pharmaceutical companies got the US Supreme Court to allow them to pay generic drug makers to delay the release of generic equivalents of medications for a time after the patent for a medication expires.
3) They’ve raised the prices of the few patented medications left in the US substantially in the last few years. The following table clearly shows this pattern:
Medication and Dose Indication October 2012 Price June 2016 Price Price Increase Abilify 20 mg Depression $26.35 per pill $40.51 per pill 54% Advair 250/50 Asthma $3.97 per inhalation $5.48 per inhalation 38% Benicar 40 mg Blood Pressure $4.26 per pill $7.10 per pill 67% Byetta 10 mcg Diabetes $128.58 per dose pen $232.59 per dose pen 81% Cialis 20 mg Antique
Bathtub Sex$23.64 per pill $49.79 per pill 111% Crestor 20 mg Cholesterol $4.99 per pill $8.09 per pill 62% Diovan 160 mg Blood Pressure $3.43 per pill $5.89 per pill 72% Effient 10 mg Heart Disease $6.80 per pill $12.59 per pill 85% Geodon 40 mg Psychosis $8.16 per capsule $14.13 per capsule 73% Gleevec 400 mg Leukemia $189.91 per pill $324.46 per pill 71% Januvia 50 mg Diabetes $7.30 per pill $11.75 per pill 61% Lyrica 50 mg Pain $3.00 per capsule $5.57 per capsule 86% Pristiq ER 50 mg Depression $4.84 per pill $9.42 per pill 95% Vytorin 10/40 Cholesterol $4.70 per pill $8.24 per pill 75% Xarelto 20 mg Atrial Fibrillation $7.59 per pill $11.60 per pill 53%
Table 3 shows the average (NADAC) price pharmacies paid for 15 medications. It shows the average cost for these medications in October 2012 compared to the average cost for the same medications in June 2016. In just 3 1/2 years most of the listed medications rose at least 60-90% in price.
This rapid escalation in medication prices has managed to offset some of the losses to the pharmaceutical companies but it hasn’t significantly increased the total amount we in the US have paid for our drugs. That’s an important point: The overall cost of pharmaceuticals in the US hasn’t been going up and, in fact, outside of a few select medications, most drugs are now a lot cheaper.
These techniques the pharmaceutical companies are using to cut their losses generally provide no new therapeutic benefit—they just renew their ability to demand very high prices (at least in the US).
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/the_pharmaceutical_industry/
All ad hominem. An indication of a man at the end of his rope.
How does everyone forget seeing this face tho
The chin alone ill never forget
I'm not reading all that . That's just argument by wall of text.Obviously there is no way to prove AG Sessions' intentions. You go on believing him choosing to recuse himself was a genius chess tactic to prevent him from having to investigate Trump and I'll believe he chose to recuse himself under mounting pressure stemming from the revelation that he had not disclosed his contacts with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearing. Anyone reading can decide which of the two arguments is more convincing. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
That's not my argument and I have stated my position. I summarized it in post 20 in this thread and went into more detail in the thread where we had this initial debate. You either have really poor reading comprehension or you're being intentionally dishonest. I tend to believe the latter.
Congratulations on your first compelling rebuttal. I present a counterpoint
...
The protease inhibitors were among the last of the truly revolutionary classes of medications to come from the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, almost all new medications have been variations of old medications with a slight improvement (if even that) or a new indication. Few new classes of medications, almost no medical miracles, nothing that has significantly changed the way we practice medicine has come from the pharmaceutical industry since the late nineties.
So how is it that an industry that gave us so many revolutionary, life saving wonder drugs in decades past is now reduced to peddling gimmicks and repeatedly recycling old ideas?
The “golden age of the pharmaceutical industry” was drawing to a close as early as 1990 when the pharmaceutical companies began to tire of new ideas. New ideas are always expensive and risky. Even the most brilliant sounding ideas often go nowhere when tested clinically.
This innovation fatigue had become so serious by the early 1990’s that Herceptin, the monoclonal antibody that first cured metastatic breast cancer, almost didn’t even get tested. In his book “The Emperor of All Maladies,” Siddhartha Mukherjee describes the difficulty Genentech scientists had convincing their executives to fund the testing of Herceptin after it had already been developed in 1990:
“… but Genentech was worried that pouring money into the development of another drug that failed would cripple the company’s finances. Chastened by the experience of others–”allergic to cancer” as one Genentech researcher described it– Genentech pulled funding away from most of its cancer projects.” (Page 418)
Herceptin had already been developed, but Genentech executives didn’t care. Testing to see if it worked risked wasting money and these executives were becoming very risk averse. Genentech executives weren’t alone in their risk aversion either. From 1995-1997 Novartis executives tried equally hard to kill Gleevec– another miracle drug that suppresses a deadly form of leukemia indefinitely–because they feared that the trials needed to clear Gleevec would cost too much (Page 436).
Fortunately, both Gleevec and Herceptin got the funding they needed and are now providing billions of dollars in revenue to the pharmaceutical companies that tried to kill them. They were among the last new ideas to get funding from the drug companies though. By the time Gleevec came on the market in 2000 the door had mostly shut on novel pharmaceutical research.
By 1990 the pharmaceutical industry knew they already had a lot of very effective products that were making them lots of money each year. They had patents that were generating billions of dollars a year and would continue to do so for many years to come. They also knew they could probably find a number of new uses for the classes of medications they already had. The most profitable course they saw at that point was to just coast; put no more funding into new foundational research and just keep pushing what was already working for them. That’s exactly what they did, and it worked!
The profits made by the pharmaceutical companies exploded over the last decade without them putting out any new products that were even remotely innovative. But that strategy can only work for a little while. Two decades after they shut the door on actual innovation the revenue from the old ideas is starting to run dry.
Figure 4: (From linked article above.) New medications released each successive year since 2001 by the pharmaceutical companies have been increasingly less popular.
So, we in the US continue to overpay for brand name prescription medications, but the pharmaceutical industry has given us almost no new important therapies in more than 15 years. A somewhat unexpected result of this is that, total pharmaceutical revenue has been nearly flat since 2010.
Figure 5: Total annual revenue for the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies since 2003.
You can see from the above graph that the total revenue from the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies has barely increased at all since 2010. It has actually dropped slightly since 2011 despite a more than 50% increase in the cost of brand name prescription drugs in the US since 2012.
What changed? A flood of Generic drugs came on the market.
Because there really is a market for generic drugs, we don’t pay any more for most generics than people in other countries. In 2003, most of the medications prescribed were still under patent. Today, the opposite is true. The effect is easy to see in the following graph, which shows the dramatic loss of revenue when the patent Bristol-Myers Squibb owned on Plavix expired.
Figure 6: Bristol-Myers Squibb lost their patent for Plavix in 2011 and, as you can see, that cost them over $6 billion a year in lost revenue from just the US.
Profit Without Innovation
The pharmaceutical companies haven’t been taking all of these patent losses lying down. They’ve ins uted a number of measures to help offset the amount they’ve been losing to lost patent protection:
1) They’ve fought very hard, and in every way they can, to delay the expiration of drug exclusivity whenever possible. This process is called “evergreening” a patent. For example, they can apply for a new indication for an old drug just prior to it’s patent expiration. They can change the delivery system for, say, an inhaler. They can alter the recommended doses of a drug by a small amount– they have a lot of tricks for maintaining exclusivity and these tricks can often delay generic compe ion for several years.
2) In 2013 the pharmaceutical companies got the US Supreme Court to allow them to pay generic drug makers to delay the release of generic equivalents of medications for a time after the patent for a medication expires.
3) They’ve raised the prices of the few patented medications left in the US substantially in the last few years. The following table clearly shows this pattern:
Medication and Dose Indication October 2012 Price June 2016 Price Price Increase Abilify 20 mg Depression $26.35 per pill $40.51 per pill 54% Advair 250/50 Asthma $3.97 per inhalation $5.48 per inhalation 38% Benicar 40 mg Blood Pressure $4.26 per pill $7.10 per pill 67% Byetta 10 mcg Diabetes $128.58 per dose pen $232.59 per dose pen 81% Cialis 20 mg Antique
Bathtub Sex$23.64 per pill $49.79 per pill 111% Crestor 20 mg Cholesterol $4.99 per pill $8.09 per pill 62% Diovan 160 mg Blood Pressure $3.43 per pill $5.89 per pill 72% Effient 10 mg Heart Disease $6.80 per pill $12.59 per pill 85% Geodon 40 mg Psychosis $8.16 per capsule $14.13 per capsule 73% Gleevec 400 mg Leukemia $189.91 per pill $324.46 per pill 71% Januvia 50 mg Diabetes $7.30 per pill $11.75 per pill 61% Lyrica 50 mg Pain $3.00 per capsule $5.57 per capsule 86% Pristiq ER 50 mg Depression $4.84 per pill $9.42 per pill 95% Vytorin 10/40 Cholesterol $4.70 per pill $8.24 per pill 75% Xarelto 20 mg Atrial Fibrillation $7.59 per pill $11.60 per pill 53%
Table 3 shows the average (NADAC) price pharmacies paid for 15 medications. It shows the average cost for these medications in October 2012 compared to the average cost for the same medications in June 2016. In just 3 1/2 years most of the listed medications rose at least 60-90% in price.
This rapid escalation in medication prices has managed to offset some of the losses to the pharmaceutical companies but it hasn’t significantly increased the total amount we in the US have paid for our drugs. That’s an important point: The overall cost of pharmaceuticals in the US hasn’t been going up and, in fact, outside of a few select medications, most drugs are now a lot cheaper.
These techniques the pharmaceutical companies are using to cut their losses generally provide no new therapeutic benefit—they just renew their ability to demand very high prices (at least in the US).
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/the_pharmaceutical_industry/
All ad hominem. An indication of a man at the end of his rope.
Pharmaceutical companies exist to make profit for their shareholders. That's job number ing 1 for them. When they develop drugs, they do it in hopes of making profits. It doesn't mean that they will, but they aren't charities and they aren't philanthropist organizations. They are profit driven businesses and only a ing idiot would argue that their product development isn't driven by profit/loss motive. So unless you think they just stumbled upon these drugs that they keep resubmitting with slight variances, you don't have a leg to stand on. Not to worry though, there are companies who make prosthetics that can fit you with one, and they are also profit driven.
Also, I never called Sessions' decision "genius". Stop putting words in my mouth. Argue against what I said, not what you wish I would have said.
In each of the arguments you've cited, you don't even understand the argument. You're so far out in left field jousting the strawmen you've built that you've lost your way.
1. CHL used for open carry is uncons utional but then so are many gun laws. I don't need to win a case against the feds for that to be true.
2. Pharmaceutical industry profits are what drives research and development. No profit, no R&D and eventually no company. Your argument is that it's not an effective motive since they evergreen (for profit) instead of developing new drugs. I didn't say it was more effective than evergreening existing products, so you're just fighting another strawman here. You need to officially stake out the position then that evergreening is more profitable than new development, and I'll likely agree. It's not an argument I have disagreed with, but you're going down that road.
3. Sessions' recused himself against Trump's will. He was pretty quick to do so. Trump isn't your run of the mill POTUS. He could very easily fire Sessions for being part of an investigation into the Russia thing. Since Sessions recused, he's free and clear of any noise surrounding it unless he's directly implicated (recusing doesn't mean he's immune from prosecution).
Try to keep up.
So do you have any other misconceptions of arguments you think you've won? I'd be happy to relieve you of them.
That was never my argument. You keep throwing out the same strawman. The debate was whether or not the profit motive was an effective driver of innovation in the modern pharmaceutical industry.
I appreciate you being honest enough to admit you're too lazy to read an opposing opinion.
Again, my position was never that profit was never an innovation driver. The argument was that over time, as opposed to taking risk and spending money on R&D for new innovative drugs, the profit motive encouraged companies to spend money on extending existing drug patents to maintain market share which ended up coming at the expense of innovation.
At this point, I know you're not unintelligent so I have to assume you're mendacious.
A always, it's been fun...
Look, we've established you're not arguing from an honest position on pretty much anything. I'm not interested. Maybe you'll pique my interest on another topic.
That's not your opinion, it's just an article that talks about evergreening. Profit is the only driver for innovation in the private sector. That doesn't mean innovation is blowing and going, but what other motive exists in the private sector for innovation?
The term "effective" is subjective. You're simply comparing profit from innovation to profit from evergreening and calling innovation profit an "ineffective motivator". That's like saying Ford hasn't created anything since the automobile, they've only modified the existing one and reissued it. Their innovation is still profit driven. Innovation isn't just paradigm shifting drugs or flying vehicles from automobiles. It's also drugs with fewer side effects, and cars that park themselves.
We've been down the diminishing returns road already. Maybe you were too busying congratulating yourself in the mirror for something you didn't win to understand the point that was being made. Whether new products are flying out of their ass like monkeys or they are leaking out slowly like colon bacterium, they are still new products and so those are the only things you have to measure. What drove the production of those? What motivated the company to spend money on the R&D? Was it love for humanity? Was it some socialism endeavor? No, it was profit pure and simple.Again, my position was never that profit was never an innovation driver. The argument was that over time, as opposed to taking risk and spending money on R&D for new innovative drugs, the profit motive encouraged companies to spend money on extending existing drug patents to maintain market share which ended up coming at the expense of innovation.
Do you realize you're talking about one thing but using something else when you try to prove it? So companies make more profit from existing products, it's smart to do that. It's a viable alternative to losing your ass because your product was made generic and sold at Walmart for 5 dollars for 100 pills. Still, when the company innovates, why does it do so?
You're good at assuming.At this point, I know you're not unintelligent so I have to assume you're mendacious.
A always, it's been fun...
Quitting again? Mark this down as another win for you then.
Well, it's by no means an article about evergreening, but if that's what you get out of it, there's nothing I can do to help you comprehend.
The bolded above has been your argument from the beginning - the profit motive is what we have, so regardless of whether or not it's effective, we should continue down this path. This is an ideological, and quite frankly lazy, position. I disagree. There are options to shift the paradigm. This "wall of text" is is relatively short...
http://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2014/...ug-development
People will do anything for money. This is true in all sectors. Why do you think it's not true in pharmaceuticals? You're suggesting a different motive. Name it.
By the way, I read the article.
They are going the long way around suggesting a consortium that is funded magically by the federal government:
"National Ins utes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, a consortium of 10 drug companies and several non-profit organizations who agreed to share scientific data about drugs in early development in four disease areas."
Under this plan the American taxpayer would be funding the research of private companies for drugs they'll be charged for once approved. If you think the private sector is slow to produce effective drugs, just wait until Uncle Sam gets a crack at it. Wait until the funding comes up before committee and gets rerouted to another project.
Where's the motive though? I see funding and consortium and private companies still getting paid to do R&D, but instead of using their own money they use ours. I don't see more motive to create new drugs. I see more motive to do R&D for government funding. That's happening now at universities across the nation. How's that going?
No thanks.
This is the last time I am going to state my position. The profit motive actually disincentivizes innovation of new products, an expensive and risky endeavor, by incentivizing evergreening which we both agree is more profitable.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 03-09-2017 at 08:39 AM.
Changing the motive doesn't reduce the risk. The filter is the same regardless of the motive. Until you downgrade the filtration rate, the price of new drug development will remain. You're just proposing that taxpayers foot the bill instead of industry.
The answer lies in technology, informatics, chemical diversity and bioengineering. It doesn't lie in who's funding it, which is all you're looking at. Those things I just mentioned also come from profit driven industries. Evergreening allows companies to stay profitable, and these companies are the ones with infrastructure and expertise (and libraries). The fact that they are even brought in on the 119 million dollar endeavor is an indicator of that.
So no, evergreening doesn't dissuade new drug development. If anything, it gives it financial assistance. The endeavor is expensive regardless the motive. Profit motive will be what eventually breaks new ground, as expensive technology is developed to do things we currently are unable to do.
Last edited by DMC; 03-09-2017 at 09:55 AM.
Nancy Pelosi At age 76 raises a lot of money for the Democratic Party. She is still a force to be reckoned with…A hottie when she was young...
Sounds like at trading card. I'll give you three AL Gore rookie cards for a prime NancyNancy Pelosi At age 76 raises a lot of money for the Democratic Party. She is still a force to be reckoned with…A hottie when she was young...
Can't stand AlGore...Kind of a monster name if you ask me...At least one can have a conversation with Nancy if you can be civil...
which chin, specifically?How does everyone forget seeing this face tho
The chin alone ill never forget
Lmao.
The point is to mitigate technical risk, not to have the taxpayer funding R&D. It's $25M a year to demonstrate risk can be shared across companies who agree to share data about drugs under development.
Also from the article:
Innovative therapeutics are, on average, more commercially successful than those that follow in their footsteps. Given the fairly steady rate of innovative drug introductions over the past 25 years, it seems that drug makers discount this source of value. This may be because, despite significant improvements in financing mechanisms in the past few decades, drug makers still bear a huge amount of individual financial risk. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on the development of a new drug, but when a drug fails in clinical trials, drug makers generally absorb the development costs. The traditional insurance market cannot really be applied to the drug development process, chiefly due to the difficulty of accurately measuring technical risk. However, the lack of traditional insurance does not mean that the risk of the drug development process cannot be shared. Many approaches to hedging R&D risk have been proposed; however, they have not been systematically adopted. Some have even suggested that the drug development process be securitized, an approach that would more effectively distribute the risk to a willing pool of investors. Drug makers, investors, and bankers must work together to improve and adopt new project financing and hedging tools that effectively spread the financial risk inherent in the drug development process.
All of this would be 100% privately funded. This has nothing to do with shifting the cost of R&D from companies to taxpayers but that was the only thing you gleaned from the article. This indicates to me you didn't understand the crux of article. Maybe it is an issue with your reading comprehension, but I don't think so. You cling to the public spend because it fit's into your Reagan era worldview that government is the problem.
No I'm not. You just didn't understand what you read. See above.
This all costs money. Again it has nothing to do with funding, it has to do with mitigating/spreading technical risk.
This opinion isn't borne out in the numbers, not when 60% of new drug approvals over the past 25 years work through pre-existing approaches.
"National Ins utes for Health committed $119 million over five years to the Accelerating Medicines Partnership"
Then where did the money come from? Where will it come from in the future under that plan? What is the underlying motive for private industry to embark in these ventures, smaller profits but smaller risks? If so, that's still a profit motive.
It's called using government money to spur innovation. In this case, spurring innovative ways to mitigate technical risk in new drug development.
If it works, it would be in the private sectors' best interest to continue to spread the cost of technical risk. The market will play it's role allowing the profit motive to return as a true driver of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
That's the goal.
$119M represents less than 1% the cost of the proposed wall on the Southern border which you don't seem to take an issue with.
A much better investment imo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
