quote:
it’s a good argument for making medical R&D more of a public sector thing and less of a private sector one.

The public sector actually has a strong incentive for saving lives (larger tax base) where, as we can see, the private sector doesn’t.

you really think your average taxpayer would be ok with having more taxes taken out to fund R&D of new medicines/treatments, as expensive as it is? and furthermore, with all the distrust of the government, as it is and as it becomes even worse on the daily, you think people would trust those new medicines/treatments, knowing it was made by the government/public sector?

there are so, so many variables, and no easy fix to healthcare costs, and i'm all for a single payer method, but it takes money to R&D new treatment options, and you either pay for it up front (public) or on the backend (private)...

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by chRxis

None of your fricking business

Member since Feb 2008

23600 posts

Posted on 4/17/18 at 11:35 am to DrunkerThanThou

quote:
Big pet peeve of mine. People talk about a cure for cancer like it’s sitting in a CIA warehouse somewhere

exactly...

here, some of y'all need to read this....

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bruco

Charlotte, NC

Member since Aug 2016

2792 posts

Posted on 4/17/18 at 12:22 pm to athenslife101

quote:
He’s a research analyst. He has a certain amount of companies to watch within a specific subgroup and decide which of those are good deals. It’s not a surprise he doesn’t find this a “good” deal for clients and investors.

Someone actually gets the purpose of this report. Reading any more into it is stupid.

This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 12:23 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Big_Slim

Mogadishu

Member since Apr 2016

3977 posts

Posted on 4/17/18 at 12:39 pm to DrunkerThanThou

quote:
Big pet peeve of mine. People talk about a cure for cancer like it’s sitting in a CIA warehouse somewhere. It’d like saying finding a cure for diseases caused by viruses. There’s a lot of ignorance influencing public opinion when it comes to med research

^This. I mean if Steve Jobs couldn't pay to get his cured then there's no way it's sitting on a shelf somewhere.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by AbuTheMonkey

Chicago, IL

Member since May 2014

8002 posts

Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:29 pm to StupidBinder

quote:
I know this isn’t a popular opinion on this board, it it’s a good argument for making medical R&D more of a public sector thing and less of a private sector one.

The public sector actually has a strong incentive for saving lives (larger tax base) where, as we can see, the private sector doesn’t.

Much of the early stage research - I want to say at least half and maybe as much as two-thirds - is "public" in that it is federal and state dollars directly spent on research (much of it at universities).

Where the pharma firms really add value is taking the early stage research through trials. The public sector would be absolutely terrible at that, and I want them as far away from that as possible other than setting standards and verifying trials. You have to think of big pharmaceutical companies as calculated risk portfolio managers using advanced portfolio theory to bring products to market: Product A has X% change of working and will bring in Y dollars; Product B has W% change of working and will be in Z dollars; etc., etc. Something like only 1 in 70 molecules that hit stage two trials will eventually get to market.

To the OP, the Goldman analyst was stating something in a very narrow context. If firms come up with a true cure for a chronic or malignant disease, they can charge a price that will make up for whatever losses they have by losing a future customer. The economics of Sovaldi were such that Gilead has easily made more from it than it would have with other products that just treat symptoms. IIRC, they acquired it for $11B and have made (in real dollars) about $15+B so far - that's not taking into account distribution, marketing, insurance, etc., etc.

This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 1:33 pm

Page 1 2 3