- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Treatment for infant muscle wasting disease to hit market. potential price: $2 million
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:13 am to LSUFanHouston
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:13 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
So now, a question that I am sure will be very, very controversial, but we are all adults here, so let's ask it:
"If a medicine can only be afforded by the select wealthy, should we even bother with the research/creation of it"?
In other words, if 100 people have a disease but only 1 person can afford the cure, then 99 people will die. Should we just not worry about the cure and let 100 people die?
R&D dollars are limited. Should companies instead focus their R&D dollars on research, that when completed, will help/serve a larger market?
I believe that is a very valid discussion to have.
1
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:16 am to 50_Tiger
The problem is that at one time the medical field was a calling. People entered it to serve others and help those in need of help. Now though, it’s a business. And I’m a staunch conservative and believe in the free market. But there are some things that should not be a for-profit business. And chief among those things are churches and hospitals.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:17 am to East Coast Band
While this does seem obscene, when the cost of developing a drug is in the hundreds of million dollars and the number of patients that need that drug is so small.......
And I doubt anyone that truly needs this drug goes without. The flip side is that the drug is never developed. If you think that anyone develops these ground breaking drugs absent the incentive of profit you’re a special kind of stupid.
And I doubt anyone that truly needs this drug goes without. The flip side is that the drug is never developed. If you think that anyone develops these ground breaking drugs absent the incentive of profit you’re a special kind of stupid.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:18 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The problem is that at one time the medical field was a calling. People entered it to serve others and help those in need of help. Now though, it’s a business. And I’m a staunch conservative and believe in the free market. But there are some things that should not be a for-profit business. And chief among those things are churches and hospitals.
Financial incentives are what drive innovation.
If you believe feelings and callings are what drive ground breaking research, im afraid you were born in the wrong era.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:20 am to East Coast Band
The price of a new drug has to cover research and development, then additional rounds of testing for the FDA approval, then production cost. There’s a lot that goes into it. Then the company tries to make some money. If the company is making an average margin on this drug, then the price is acceptable. If the company is gouging, then frick them. But gene therapy studies are incredibly expensive and time consuming. The research on this drug could easily be 10 years in the making. 10 years of paying for a lab, expensive research, multiple doctors and chemists that are experts in their fields, plus overhead. That’s a lot of costs. That one drug has to recoup a lot of value
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:28 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Financial incentives are what drive innovation.
That’s true today sadly.
quote:
If you believe feelings and callings are what drive ground breaking research, im afraid you were born in the wrong era.
I know they don’t drive ground breaking research now. That’s my whole point. But they use to. Look at all the ground breaking research breakthroughs between the mid-19th century until the mid-20th century. We went from people regularly dying from even minor illnesses to the ability to transplant major organs like the human heart. We cured disease like small pox and polio. I dare say, when you consider the state of medicine in 1860s compared to 1960s, the advances seen in that period eclipse the advances we’ve seen since.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:29 am to Upperdecker
quote:
That one drug has to recoup a lot of value
No. That one single drug does not. There are other drugs they develop. If this was the only thing they researched, and the only thing they would sell, then i would agree, but they have other means of making revenue and profits when you look at the big picture of this company.
And what is a reasonable ROI for this company on this research? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:30 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I know they don’t drive ground breaking research now. That’s my whole point. But they use to. Look at all the ground breaking research breakthroughs between the mid-19th century until the mid-20th century. We went from people regularly dying from even minor illnesses to the ability to transplant major organs like the human heart.
I agree 100%
quote:
We cured disease like small pox and polio. I dare say, when you consider the state of medicine in 1860s compared to 1960s, the advances seen in that period eclipse the advances we’ve seen since.
Those are like gnats to Ebola, HIV, etc.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:31 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
No. That one single drug does not. There are other drugs they develop. If this was the only thing they researched, and the only thing they would sell, then i would agree, but they have other means of making revenue and profits when you look at the big picture of this company.
And what is a reasonable ROI for this company on this research? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
That single drug has a P & L statement for it that someone has to answer for.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:32 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
No. That one single drug does not. There are other drugs they develop. If this was the only thing they researched, and the only thing they would sell, then i would agree, but they have other means of making revenue and profits when you look at the big picture of this company. And what is a reasonable ROI for this company on this research? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
No it doesn’t have to recoup everything. But it has to recoup a large portion at minimum. Legally, however, they are allowed to recoup all their costs.
Patent law gives the company 20 years to recoup their investment. Not sure how much of that is recouping value and how much is profit
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:35 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Those are like gnats to Ebola, HIV, etc.
I’m not saying they’re not. The point was how far medicine advanced in the period of the 1860s to the 1960s. You have to remember in 1860s they didn’t even know what role bacteria played in disease. And we didn’t even know viruses exist. It wasn’t uncommon for people to die from something as simple as getting a cut on their foot or having a tooth pulled.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:44 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The problem is that at one time the medical field was a calling. People entered it to serve others and help those in need of help. Now though, it’s a business. And I’m a staunch conservative and believe in the free market. But there are some things that should not be a for-profit business. And chief among those things are churches and hospitals.
There are many, many doctors out there that are terrible businesspeople. I work with a lot of them. Those that are in private practice, yes, they make a good salary, but have massive student loans. It's not until they are close to 50, when the money really starts to pile up.
There are still many, many doctors that get into medicine for the love of helping.
However, the problem isn't the doctors and their "calling." The problem, to the extent there is one, is 100 percent of the pharmaceutical companies, and an increasing number of hospitals, insurance companies, and other medical facilities, are privately owned. And a huge number of those are publically traded.
When you are a public-traded company, maximization and growth of profits are the number 1 priority. Traditional medicine was about what was best for the patient, now it's what is best for the shareholder.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:46 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
However, the problem isn't the doctors and their "calling." The problem, to the extent there is one, is 100 percent of the pharmaceutical companies, and an increasing number of hospitals, insurance companies, and other medical facilities, are privately owned. And a huge number of those are publically traded.
When you are a public-traded company, maximization and growth of profits are the number 1 priority. Traditional medicine was about what was best for the patient, now it's what is best for the shareholder.
Agree 100%
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:54 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Is 2mil what they charge insurance?
Yes so many people fail to realize this and freak out on the drug company. They will normally even eat the cost if you dont have insurance, no patient is paying 2 mil for this drug if they need it.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:57 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
However, the problem isn't the doctors and their "calling." The problem, to the extent there is one, is 100 percent of the pharmaceutical companies, and an increasing number of hospitals, insurance companies, and other medical facilities, are privately owned. And a huge number of those are publically traded.
When you are a public-traded company, maximization and growth of profits are the number 1 priority. Traditional medicine was about what was best for the patient, now it's what is best for the shareholder.
That is the problem, but i'm not sure anyone is interested in fixing it, or even consider it to be a problem.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:03 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
but i'm not sure anyone is interested in fixing it, or even consider it to be a problem.
The only solution I've heard is to have the government take it all over, which I think given our current government system, is simply swapping out one set of problems for another.
To me, the solution is to get rid of all of the HMO, PPO crap, and to get rid of the system in which a provider charges $1000 for a hangnail, but the insurer only agrees to pay them $75, so they accept it, and $25 of that $75 comes from the patient.
All this system does is add more confusion to the process.
Get rid of the funny math. Let the doctors and providers charge what they need to. Have the patient pay for part of it and the provider pay for the rest. You know, the system that works for every other form of insurance we have.
If everyone knew from the jump that this type of treatment, in reality, is going to cost $100,000... then we can have reasonable discussions about how to fund that. Putting a $2 million number out there that is 100 percent BS just clouds the issue and freaks people out.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:05 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
That’s not what I meant at all. As a father I can’t imagine the medication needed to save my child existing but not being able to afford it.
When does this actually happen though? People that need it seem to find a way.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:08 am to GetCocky11
quote:
The list price may be $2mm, but with insurance and coupons it may be less (still incredibly expensive though, I'd imagine).
, can you imagine that coupon? 1% off would be more than many people spend on medications in a lifetime ($20,000).Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:10 am to slackster
quote:
When does this actually happen though? People that need it seem to find a way.
Here...
quote:
THURSDAY, Oct. 29 (HealthDay News) -- An estimated 17,000 children in the United States might have died unnecessarily over nearly two decades because they didn't have health insurance, according to a report from researchers at Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore.
They found that kids who lacked health insurance were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than were kids who had insurance. After adjusting for such differences as race and gender, uninsured kids were still 37.8 percent more likely to die than kids with insurance coverage.
17,000 child deaths
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:12 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
That right there is the problem with this countries healthcare. We so often never see what the true cost of something is b/c we simply pay what the insurance tells us and they pay the rest, and our insurance rates just keep going up b/c every Tom Dick and Harry is out there taking advantage of how they price their services and products b/c they know the insurance companies will pay it.
Well your issue is with the insurance company, not really the wheel chair manufacturer.
I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be transparency in pricing though. It's getting there with prescription apps and coverage cost estimates, but it has a long way to go.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News