should the pharmaceutical companies be run by the people and government

[nec209]

Will the universities and non profit groups/government run the pharmaceutical not the private sector.

 

That look at the dirty sloppy rich pharmaceutical companies .Most of the fruits have been picked it is getting harder and harder to come up with new drugs now for this reason.Also there is less and less incentive to come up with new drugs to fight infectious disease do to new strains ,mutations and so many new pathgans every year coming out.Where is incentive to come up with drug to fight TB or AIDS virus when in year or more it can mutate or have many strains of the TB or AIDS virus .Look at comman cold so many strains.With so many infectious disease out there and new one coming out every year and so many strains ,mutations there is less and less incentive .

 

Who is going spend 2 billion to fight TB or AIDS virus when in 2 or 3 years it can mutate .Who is going spend 2 billion to fight comman cold with so many strains.

 

 

The pharmaceutical companies want to get dirty rich and how to do that is vaccines and birth control pills ,high blood pressure bills that is where the profit is not infectious disease .

[mississippichem]

The drug companies are "filthy rich" because they offer a product that is highly valued by the market and society as a whole. Millions upon millions of dollars are devoted to developing new and innovative drugs. It takes thousands of sales just to pay off the initial investment from the research. I've done pharmaceutical research, trust me, we go through money like a hot knife goes through butter.

 

As far as the government running the drug companies; nothing could contribute to the stagnation of medical research more. Economic incentives are the strongest incentives we know of. Nothing stirs research more than the prospect of one standing to make millions in the process, which I believe they deserve. If government were to run these operations, there would be no incentive to develop products competitively which ultimately leads to a lower quality product for the consumer.

 

Drug companies are an easy target for those that hate monetary success because, yes, they do make large profits in the long run. But remeber the next time you use a nasal decongestant that this would not be available were it not for the incentivized innovation of the free market system.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think nec209 is pointing out that the monetary incentives often don't lead to medications that save the most lives; a company might spend millions on a drug to treat "female sexual arousal disorder" because they believe it will sell well, but not fund research into a tropical disease because those afflicted are often too poor to afford treatment.

 

Removing economic incentives would be a huge mistake, though, because companies would no longer be able to afford their research (good or bad), and because there would still be no incentive to research other diseases. You may succeed in stopping research into pills for minor conditions, but how will you succeed in starting research into pills for major ones?

 

Perhaps the best way would be to add an artificial economic incentive, much like the X-Prize did for space travel. The scale would have to be vastly larger, but pick some target -- a vaccine for AIDS, better malaria treatments, whatever -- and throw a huge sum of money out as a prize and you'll get companies fighting each other to win it.

[CharonY]

This is unlikely to work. The sum would have to be enormous to be any incentive at all. Certainly in the billions of dollar range.

And even then given low potential to being awarded the price (as opposed to, say, selling a new flavor of cough medicine) the expected return for any investment is too low.

 

What nec209 posted has some truth in it, though. One of the arguably best way to save lives is to improve on diagnostics. However, there is little incentive from the pharmaceutical side to develop them as a the revenue from diagnostics is abysmally low compared to the development cost. Incidentally that was one of the major points in a biomarker conference recently. Of course one could do both, use government money to develop life saving but less lucrative diagnostics and medicine. However, the required investment would be huge. Already the NIH and similar funding agencies are pouring money into explorative uni research, however the grants that they give out are usually insufficient to conduct the big trials necessary to push things towards utility. In the end it boils down to lack of money.

And this is why the industry will focus on drugs that promise high revenues, regardless of impact on public health.

[nec209]

I think nec209 is pointing out that the monetary incentives often don't lead to medications that save the most lives; a company might spend millions on a drug to treat "female sexual arousal disorder" because they believe it will sell well, but not fund research into a tropical disease because those afflicted are often too poor to afford treatment.

 

That had pathgans that mutate or have many strains.

 

What I will like to see is the private sector deal with the profitable side of medicine and the government deal with the non profitable side of medicine .

 

The economic zones in China has worked well with state run and private .Well the USSR all state run did not worked out so good .

 

Its up to you to tell the government to cough up millions of dollars in cash every year for research.