drugs and limits

[ydoaPs]

IMO, pharmaceutical companies should have a legal limit on their %profit. There's no reason I can see for people to suffer and/or die because a CEO wants a new Lexus. Sure, they need to cover cost of production and R&D. However, they do not need to have an extraordinary standard of living; they want to have an extraordinary standard of living. Is the fatter wallet of the CEOs worth the suffering and death that result from the lack of ability to afford the medicine?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

Thoughts?

[bascule]

I think there are better ways that essential medicines could be funded other than a profit motive.

 

The profit motive is a terrible way to fund research into cures for life threatening illnesses. It dictates the optimal solution is an ongoing treatment, not a cure.

 

There are far more people out there with large amounts of money who have erectile disfunction than there are people with HIV.

 

I think an interesting way to fund pharmaceutical research into life-threatening diseases would be a prize fund. Imagine if $1 billion were rewarded to the first firm to cure cancer. That would really be something.

Edited October 17, 2009 by bascule

[A Tripolation]

IMO, pharmaceutical companies should have a legal limit on their %profit. There's no reason I can see for people to suffer and/or die because a CEO wants a new Lexus. Sure, they need to cover cost of production and R&D. However, they do not need to have an extraordinary standard of living; they want to have an extraordinary standard of living. Is the fatter wallet of the CEOs worth the suffering and death that result from the lack of ability to afford the medicine?

 

Can't this ENTIRE post apply to doctors as well? Any human being can get along with 150K a year profit, ANYWHERE. Doctors could cut their exorbitant salaries and lower the cost of office visits, but do they? No. So why should insurance companies have to?

[Saryctos]

IMO, pharmaceutical companies should have a legal limit on their %profit. There's no reason I can see for people to suffer and/or die because a CEO wants a new Lexus. Sure, they need to cover cost of production and R&D. However, they do not need to have an extraordinary standard of living; they want to have an extraordinary standard of living. Is the fatter wallet of the CEOs worth the suffering and death that result from the lack of ability to afford the medicine?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

Thoughts?

Well, you have to think about it in terms of opportunity cost. The reason they bother developing these drugs is because there is money in it. If there weren't massive profits to be had, then they would pursue other options.

 

It's pretty much the same problem with any intellectual property issue. The money draws people towards something, which pushes the advances forward. Take the money out and you'll still have some people who care, but many others will simply do something else instead.

 

It all boils down to figuring out a better way to manage the problem between benefit and motivation. This is likely the biggest challenge of the times with the information age getting into full swing and bringing billions upon billions of dollars into existence from a very small amount of resources.

[padren]

I like Bascule's idea, though I think there should be a way to promote cooperation - if the funds are worth 3x the base amount if a cure is found by a date, then two companies would have a vested interest in working together.

 

That may not work so well (just using a multiplier) but it does seem to be ironic that in such an age of information we have the technologies and formulas for promoting health and overcoming disease as some of the least shared and most closely guarded secrets.

 

Perhaps if we had prize money for not just cures, but medical advancements made public domain that ended up leading to cures. Research could be done and innovative techniques discovered, and then promoted and shared - so that if another company uses that to cure something the supporting companies get retro-grants.

 

Kind of a "if you have information that leads to an arrest" for medical research.

 

The other thought, is setting a value over cost for medicines that - if the company charges less than, they get a tax break, and if they charge over, they get a tax increase. The whole issue does require some sort of reform though. Really it's an issue of extortion - when life depends on a service or product, the consumer has no power because they will find a way to pay, even if they have to lie and steal to get it or suffer greatly.

[ydoaPs]

I think there are better ways that essential medicines could be funded other than a profit motive.

 

The profit motive is a terrible way to fund research into cures for life threatening illnesses. It dictates the optimal solution is an ongoing treatment, not a cure.

 

There are far more people out there with large amounts of money who have erectile disfunction than there are people with HIV.

 

I think an interesting way to fund pharmaceutical research into life-threatening diseases would be a prize fund. Imagine if $1 billion were rewarded to the first firm to cure cancer. That would really be something.

That's a great idea.

 

 

Can't this ENTIRE post apply to doctors as well? Any human being can get along with 150K a year profit, ANYWHERE. Doctors could cut their exorbitant salaries and lower the cost of office visits, but do they? No. So why should insurance companies have to?

I agree with you up until the end. Yes, my argument can apply to doctors as well. In fact, it should. Any place where unrestricted capitalism kills is a place where unrestricted capitalism should not be. period.

 

Also, we're talking about drug companies here. However, restricting the profit of drug companies and doctors would reduce the prices making socialized insurance even cheaper.

 

 

Well, you have to think about it in terms of opportunity cost. The reason they bother developing these drugs is because there is money in it. If there weren't massive profits to be had, then they would pursue other options.

 

It's pretty much the same problem with any intellectual property issue. The money draws people towards something, which pushes the advances forward. Take the money out and you'll still have some people who care, but many others will simply do something else instead.

 

It all boils down to figuring out a better way to manage the problem between benefit and motivation. This is likely the biggest challenge of the times with the information age getting into full swing and bringing billions upon billions of dollars into existence from a very small amount of resources.

 

I'm not talking about completely removing profit; I'm talking about limiting it. I think bacule's idea of a reward system would make up for any lost motive.

[Mr Skeptic]

You also have the option of having government fund research, especially if it requires the research to be in the public domain.

[Saryctos]

I think there are better ways that essential medicines could be funded other than a profit motive.

 

The profit motive is a terrible way to fund research into cures for life threatening illnesses. It dictates the optimal solution is an ongoing treatment' date=' not a cure.

 

There are far more people out there with large amounts of money who have erectile disfunction than there are people with HIV.

 

I think an interesting way to fund pharmaceutical research into life-threatening diseases would be a prize fund. Imagine if $1 billion were rewarded to the first firm to cure cancer. That would really be something.[/quote']

The reward system is a profit motive. The profit motive however, is an excellent way to fund research into life threatening illness. It is also an excellent way to treat disease. The problem at the moment is that there is no profit in cures for the companies that cure disease. There is however, a benefit to the government if a patient is cured of disease. A healthy population requires less money for disability, a working population generates more taxable income, a population that lives longer pays more in taxes.

 

The beneficiary of healthy people right now isn't the companies that make them healthy, it's the government itself. You want to motivate some companies to cure cancer? Give them a cut of the action!

 

If the government pays out for every person who meets the requirements of "cured" / "mostly cured" from your drug, you'll find a profit for curing people in addition to treating them. Then if the government buys the rights to the treatment you'll find an immediate return for the drug companies efforts, while allowing the cheap manufacture of the drug to keep prices down for the people without deterring investment in the research.

 

I'm not talking about completely removing profit; I'm talking about limiting it. I think bacule's idea of a reward system would make up for any lost motive.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you said anything about removing profits completely. By reducing the profits you'll be reducing the number of people willing to be a part of the drug industry.