Life saving drug too expensive

oppenheimer1

eth0 wrote: »

ah the grim reality of the sityeation. that seems another one of his battle cries alright.

it wouldn't be wonderful to pump all our money into a dieing person's life but the problem here is that big pharmaceutical companies are demanding too much money be pumped into them for something very simple apparently justified by vague promises of new research by the said company while they're infact cleaning up a massive profit for themselves.

these private companies have far too much control for their own good and there should be more of this kind of carry on: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277001285472654.html

I think the bit in bold shows your total ignorance of the pharmaceutical industry. The development of these drugs is far from simple and takes many many years, from first breakthrough to clinical trial and general availability. Many drugs fail in this process along the way - many more than make it to pharmacy shelf. This process is enormously expensive and highly risky, many thousands of highly skilled people could work on the development of a new drug. The reward for the company at the end is the prospect of a large profit - otherwise the whole process wouldn't be worthwhile.

Do you think pharma should be nationalised globally?

poppyvally

aventis gave the hse free treatments for 1yr + 6 months to get their fingers out but they (HSE) declined to put it on the medical card, TOOOO expensive to save the lives of their citizens. That is the measure of our govt. I voted for the bastards but never again. I dont know who'll i'll vote for next time.. I'm sad and totally disillusioned.

Jimoslimos

eth0 wrote: »

it wouldn't be wonderful to pump all our money into a dieing person's life but the problem here is that big pharmaceutical companies are demanding too much money be pumped into them for something very simple apparently justified by vague promises of new research by the said company while they're infact cleaning up a massive profit for themselves.

I have been critical of practises by big pharma companies before and will continue to be, but they take massive risks which if they backfire can be disastrous. The company responsible for developing the TGN1412 drug which left all the participants seriously ill in London a few years back went bust. So with great risk there also must come great reward.

Amendment of the patent system would help, something graded perhaps so income doesn't stop abruptly after a number of years.

At the end of the day (cliche!), we all die, no drug will ever stop that from happening so we need to draw a line somewhere as to what gets funded. Efficacy of the treatment alongside economic considerations are a reality of our health system. Emotion isn't.

Jimoslimos

I'll outline a hypothetical situation,

Drug A: Increases survival rates by 15% - Cost: €8000 per patient
Drug B: Increases survival rates by 10% - Cost: €800 per patient

Which do you choose? In an ideal world with unlimited funds it's A every time, but in the real world you examine the relative benefit versus cost.

Chuck Stone

I was just throwing the idea out there as an idea (I've read it suggested somewhere so it's not my idea)

Deleted User wrote: »

What about countries that opt-out?

I guess it wouldn't be in their interests to opt out.

Would the money only be paid after the R+D and trials etc. etc.?

Yes.

How many countries would it have to be approved in before money was released? Lot of risk on the developers' part.

No idea. Haven't got a crystal ball.

Just trying to explore alternatives because these types of threads have a formula and it goes a little something like this...

A. ****in system doin bad stuff - rabble rabble rabble
B. But that's just the way things are - justify justify justify

A. yeah but - rabble rabble rabble
B. But that's just the way things are Justify justify justify

mackg

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So perhaps we should look at alternatives to the current system?

Here's one suggestion.

Put a small tax on all medicine and pool it in a global trust fund that handsomely awards innovation in pharmacology. Then breakthroughs drugs would be patent free and open for anyone to produce which would drive the costs down.

The problem isn't the money that's spent on developing the medicines you see in pharmacies or in hospitals, the real cost is in the drugs that fail at various stages before FDA or IMB or whatever approval. A tiny fraction of drugs that enter testing ever see animal testing let alone get approved. The system you outline would offer a tiny chance for those involved getting rewarded in any way plus the cost of R&D is huge. On top of this the production of drugs is costly and the quality control necessary to ensure products meet spec is large. The fact is the big Pharma companies are the only ones that can afford to take the financial hits that are necessary to get to the stage where the profits are recouped.

Chuck Stone

mackg wrote: »

The system you outline would offer a tiny chance for those involved getting rewarded in any way plus the cost of R&D is huge.

I guess you could structure the award funds in such a way that they cover the costs of all research.

On top of this the production of drugs is costly and the quality control necessary to ensure products meet spec is large.

Well there is little prodding needed to get generic manufacturers in on the feeding frenzy when drugs are out of patent. Indeed the companies with patents try everything to prevent generics producing the drug (claiming that they are copying processes etc) because it is so lucrative.

The fact is the big Pharma companies are the only ones that can afford to take the financial hits that are necessary to get to the stage where the profits are recouped.

Isn't pharma one of the most profitable industries in the world? Someone is getting horse-fucked somewhere and I'd say the cost of drugs is where the fat margins are made.

All I'm suggesting is that we look at alternative models and maybe even try them out. I was reading somewhere that pharma innovation is stagnating too (will look for the article).

opinion guy

mackg wrote: »

The problem isn't the money that's spent on developing the medicines you see in pharmacies or in hospitals, the real cost is in the drugs that fail at various stages before FDA or IMB or whatever approval. A tiny fraction of drugs that enter testing ever see animal testing let alone get approved. The system you outline would offer a tiny chance for those involved getting rewarded in any way plus the cost of R&D is huge. On top of this the production of drugs is costly and the quality control necessary to ensure products meet spec is large. The fact is the big Pharma companies are the only ones that can afford to take the financial hits that are necessary to get to the stage where the profits are recouped.

You do know they spend as much on advertising as they do on R&D ?

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

New drugs cost hundreds of million to develop, they need yo make their money back. What are you voting no on?

Complete Bolllix.

They spend three times as much on advertising as they do on R&D

The biggest customers for new drugs are governments / public health systems, and private health care because governments can't afford the drugs.


If the drug companies were nationalised globally and patents shared out the overall costs would drop to a fraction of what they are now, especially since cost of production is so close to zero that once your costs are made it's gravy train time.

It's a shame that so many people die from counterfeit medicines because of the profit model

Chuck Stone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the drug companies were nationalised globally and patents shared out the overall costs would drop to a fraction of what they are now, especially since cost of production is so close to zero that once your costs are made it's gravy train time.

Nationalise the research part of it maybe?

Let the manufacturers compete in the free market I reckon.

Capt'n Midnight

Problem with healthcare is that there is a limited budget.

It's not a case of holding back money that might save someone.

There simply isn't enough money to save everyone. It's more of a case of who can we save with the limited resources we have, people are going to die it's just a matter of trying to do the most good.

Anyone got figures on the value of a life now ?
IIRC it's something like a million euro or €40,000 per year life can be extended by.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I guess it wouldn't be in their interests to opt out.

US likely would. Or the money will just go to the same companies it does now, not sure where start-ups would get funding to begin with. :pac:

Yes.

So yeah, would just be the companies (like now) who could afford the massive start-up costs. Somewhere like the US opts out, says to the pharma companies they can continue as they are now and it'd destroy things elsewhere.

No idea. Haven't got a crystal ball.

Just trying to explore alternatives because these types of threads have a formula and it goes a little something like this...

A. ****in system doin bad stuff - rabble rabble rabble
B. But that's just the way things are - justify justify justify

A. yeah but - rabble rabble rabble
B. But that's just the way things are Justify justify justify

Seems like boards is fairly typical of the internets tbh. :pac:

mackg

opinion guy wrote: »

You do know they spend as much on advertising as they do on R&D ?

Really? Wow.

opinion guy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nationalise the research part of it maybe?

Let the manufacturers compete in the free market I reckon.

Disagree.

Proper and strict regulation of all human clinical trials including mandatory registration and ethics approval at a central register and mandatory reporting of all results regardless of positive or negative would be a good start. Ben Goldacre has an upcoming book on this. Also see his Ted talk towards the end:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

Removal of all forms of marketing would be another step. I suppose then you would have to have some sort of expert committee to decide which drugs to use or not - but you would have to have two committees maybe - one purely looking at which drug is better and another to look at relative costs

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

US likely would. Or the money will just go to the same companies it does now

Oh I'm fairly sure that's true. Billion dollar companies don't go quietly into the night.

not sure where start-ups would get funding to begin with. So yeah, would just be the companies (like now) who could afford the massive start-up costs. Somewhere like the US opts out, says to the pharma companies they can continue as they are now and it'd destroy things elsewhere.

I can't see why research labs wouldn't compete for massive prizes for innovation that would well cover their costs and some.

Seems like boards is fairly typical of the internets tbh. :pac:

True dat.

avalon68

poppyvally wrote: »

For certain types of melanoma (skin cancer) there is a new "wonder drug" which actually eliminates this type of cancer. But ...sorry! you can't have it unless you can affford it. Die!..... Sunny Jim dosent care, because we've got to get the books in order!!. Money for special advisers, bonuses to various high earners, but YOU! if you are afflicted with this type of cancer.. F'off & die!! I am not afflicted with this, but my blood is boiling. I am definitley voting ....NO!

It doesn't eliminate it - it causes remission until you develop resistance to the antibody ( happens within a yr I think if remembering correctly)....however, it would certainly give some people more time. As already alluded to, if companies don't make money on these things they won't bother developing them

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I can't see why research labs wouldn't compete for massive prizes for innovation that would well cover their costs and some.

It would have to be some investment. Try going onto Dragons' Den with something that you admit has a less than 10% chance of succeeding. :pac: Also the current patents situation has a further effect I would have thought wrt getting precursors to develop from etc.

Chuck Stone

opinion guy wrote: »

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

Bastards. Greedy, anti-scientific bastards. :mad:

donegal_road

There is a claim out there at the moment that maple syrup infused with baking soda will kill a tumor.. reason being is that a tumor feeds off glucose, but baking soda will neutralise the PH of the malignant cell and kill it. link

Here is a doctor that uses bicarbonate of soda to fight cancer

*just thought Id throw this in considering the nature of the thread, sorry if off topic

Jimoslimos

opinion guy wrote: »

Disagree.

Proper and strict regulation of all human clinical trials including mandatory registration and ethics approval at a central register and mandatory reporting of all results regardless of positive or negative would be a good start. Ben Goldacre has an upcoming book on this. Also see his Ted talk towards the end:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

That's very good, everybody should read his first book, Bad Science, I look forward to the follow-up

donegal_road

donegal_road wrote: »

There is a claim out there at the moment that maple syrup infused with baking soda will kill a tumor.. reason being is that a tumor feeds off glucose, but baking soda will neutralise the PH of the malignant cell and kill it. link

Here is a doctor that uses bicarbonate of soda to fight cancer

*just thought Id throw this in considering the nature of the thread, sorry if off topic

Worth pointing out also that Harry Hill is a doctor. :pac:

opinion guy

Jimoslimos wrote: »

That's very good, everybody should read his first book, Bad Science, I look forward to the follow-up

I haven't actually read that yet but its on the list as soon as I get the time!

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Worth pointing out also that Harry Hill is a doctor. :pac:

F**k off !??!!

Well I suppose thats vaguely more believable than him being a comedian!:rolleyes:

Jimoslimos

donegal_road wrote: »

There is a claim out there at the moment that maple syrup infused with baking soda will kill a tumor.. reason being is that a tumor feeds off glucose, but baking soda will neutralise the PH of the malignant cell and kill it. link

Here is a doctor that uses bicarbonate of soda to fight cancer

*just thought Id throw this in considering the nature of the thread, sorry if off topic

oh ffs:mad:

Can people not see the difference between in vivo and in vitro/ex vivo experiments?

Domestos kills 99.something% of all known germs, I wouldn't recommend drinking it to cure a tummy ache.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend drinking it to cure a tummy ache.

Yeah well that's just like, your opinion, man.

poppyvally

ted1 wrote: »

. What are you voting no on?

the Fiscal fuking treaty!!

44leto

It is a wonder drug and it is hugely expensive.

I don't know why the Ops bitterness is directed at sunny Jim, why not the drug company that set the price. Although I know development of this drug was hugely expensive it is not for every type of melanoma so its market is limited, the drug companies have to recoup their investment before the patent expires.

A family member who beat cancer was put on a drug that cost 5 grand a pop, it helped in saving her life, but really medicines are not cheap and ireland can't afford them all.

Robdude

I don't know how to tell you this; but we live in a world with limited resources. And as you approach the limits of quality for a given thing; the price climbs exponentially.

Two bottles of wine - mostly the same, but one can be worth many X the value of the other. We see this in, well, just about everything. The difference in pay between an employee with skills in the 90th percentile are very close those in the 95th - but the difference in pay between the 99.99th percentile and the 99.999th percentile is far more dramatic.

It is *impossible* to give EVERYONE the BEST of ANYTHING.

There are cheap things that we have a lot off. We could afford to give everyone a few of those things. But the BEST things we have, those are very expensive. For lots of reasons. It takes the combined resources of a LOT of people to produce or obtain the best things.

The best medical care - for example - is built off of generations of research, patents, technologies and represent the collective efforts of a whole LOT of people. It's not possible for EVERYONE to get the best medical care. And, without financial motivation to develop the best medical care, the industry would advance more slowly.

Think of rich ancient Egyptian with two personal slaves waving fans while the rich guy or girl eats grapes. Why can't EVERYONE have two personal slaves?!

Because there aren't enough people. The slaves would need slaves. Why couldn't every Egyptian have a pyramid? Because it took a LOT of people working really hard for a really long time to produce one pyramid.

It's not exactly the same as that; but it's conceptual. All of our major advances require the collective efforts of a LOT of people. If it takes 10 people a lifetime to build X - how can everyone have X? Everyone could only have 1/10th of X. On the plus side, as a society, we've embraced things like specialization that allow individuals to focus on a few things they can do really efficiently and depend on others to do other things.

Still, if you aren't super wealthy, you're a fool to believe you get the best of anything.

donegal_road

Jimoslimos wrote: »

oh ffs:mad:

Can people not see the difference between in vivo and in vitro/ex vivo experiments?

Domestos kills 99.something% of all known germs, I wouldn't recommend drinking it to cure a tummy ache.

I know the difference, Im not sure I see why it is relevant to what I said.. as for Domestos, why would you want to drink that? I can't see how it can be compared to baking soda and maple syrup (which would seem less likely to kill you in fairness)

Chips Lovell

poppyvally wrote: »

the Fiscal fuking treaty!!

I must have missed the chapter in the treaty about overly expensive cancer drugs.

viclemronny

ted1 wrote: »

New drugs cost hundreds of million to develop, they need yo make their money back. What are you voting no on?

1.3 billion dollars and 12 years is the industry average from the US. I'd imagine the wants all the researchers and insurance companies and test subjects to live on fresh air because they're evil.

byhookorbycrook

My name is URL wrote: »

How do you know it would cost more for her to receive older meds? If she was receiving the breakthrough treatment she'd still need to be kept under observation quite a bit more than she would for more conventional treatments. The cost of the drug being administered is only a small part of the overall cost. With newer treatments there needs to be more extensive checks and clinical observations.

The drug in question is an oral drug, you are observed for a few hours the 1st time you take it. The drug I get is €2,500 per month(paid for by VHI,thankfully)and must be adminstered in a hospital setting. So the new drug would be cheaper before you ever consider the cost of treating a relapse.

Feisar

eth0 wrote: »

It wouldn't be so bad if the scarcity of the said resources wasn't purely artificial to help big business. Once production gets going most of this stuff takes feckall to make.

The big but is that if there wasn't the potential for these huge profits these drugs wouldn't exist in the first place. we'd have nothing to be outraged about as the drug wouldn't exist.

Hande hoche!

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I must have missed the chapter in the treaty about overly expensive cancer drugs.

It's right next to the paragraph on conscription for the European army.