Should medical industries be allowed to make a profit?

[rakuenso]

I'm not sure if any else has noticed this, but lately more and more companies are rising and raking in huge profits for medical services. Thus resulting in the term "medical-industrial complex". However, some ethical question arises from this:

 

#1. Should drug companies be allowed to raise the cost of the drugs to whatever they want? Even say millions of people depend on the drug?

 

#2. These drug companies are essentially the only thing keeping millions of people alive, should they really be allowed to decide who lives and who doesn't based on socioeconomic factors?

 

#3. Can a company refuse the release of say a cure for cancer simply because it wants to hold on to the cure until more are affected?

 

#4. Should hospitals really be class-ically biased? meaning better healthcare for someone like Bill Gates simply because he has more money, and substandard treatment for the poor?

 

My 2 cents...

[Sayonara]

If they were not allowed to keep profit, there would be little or no incentive for competition, which could easily quell innovation.

 

It's unfortunate but true.

[rakuenso]

Blah, I guess altruism fails once again.

[Sayonara]

It could work if there were some sort of widespread "aggressive altruism" in society, but we don't seem to be anywhere near that level of unity.

[Aardvark]

I'm not sure if any else has noticed this, but lately more and more companies are rising and raking in huge profits for medical services.

 

It is those profits which encourages people to invest more money in medical research to develop more treatments.

 

It may be distasteful, but it is the profit motive which results in the treatments which save peoples lives.

[syntax252]

That is correct.

 

Like it or not, we owe a lot to GREED.

[ans]

It is those profits which encourages people to invest more money in medical research to develop more treatments.

 

It may be distasteful' date=' but it is the profit motive which results in the treatments which save peoples lives.[/quote']

I agree with that - that profit gives motivation for further research and development.

 

But by the same reason, aren't pharma companies more reluctant to invest in researching treatment for less prevalant diseases? If there was no profit motive, then there may be a more even spread of research and production?

[Skye]

Yes, you have orphan drugs, and IIRC the US orphan drugs act, which aims to entice companies to pursue small scale drugs by relaxing patenting laws.

[coquina]

One thing to bear in mind is that years of testing is required before a drug ever goes to market, and for one drug that does there are probably a dozen that don't. Years of testing was performed, but in the end the drug proved to be dangerous or ineffective.

 

Some how the drug company has to be repaid for that expense. There is very little time before a "generic" drug hits the market.... a drug that has the same chemical components which were derived by analizing the original drug. The company can sell it cheap because it didn't put any money into R&D.

 

In industry, you could compare the original IBM PC to PC clones. It took IBM years to develop the technology to bring out the PC, but once it was on the market, and the components were available to be purchased, clones could be built for a fraction of the cost.

 

If you want technology and innovation, you have to pay for R&D, and the only way to reimburse the investors, is to get the money back while you can.

[TimeTraveler]

The sad thing is that greed often leads to companies researching treatments rather than preventions. Treatments are more profitable, because if you make preventions and no one gets sick, eventually people will be to healthy to make treatment type medicines so profitable. Sad but true. Greed for moral values would serve humanity alot more than greed for wealth. But thats not how we have set up our civilization.

[syntax252]

Isn't prevention pretty much in the hands of the patient? What I mean is a healthy lifestyle is pretty hard to put into a bottle.

[coquina]

Isn't prevention pretty much in the hands of the patient? What I mean is a healthy lifestyle is pretty hard to put into a bottle.

 

It helps - and if you happen to be born with healthy genes, so much the better. However, a lot of people have genes that predispose them to some problems - ie cholesterol. Mine is still high even though for the past 2 years I have eaten a diet extraordinarily low in saturated or animal fat, and exercised regularly. My doctor tells me the condition is hereditary. Since I am also highly allergic to the cholesterol lowering drugs now available, I hope the pharmaceutical companies develop something else soon.

[rakuenso]

It is those profits which encourages people to invest more money in medical research to develop more treatments.

 

It may be distasteful' date=' but it is the profit motive which results in the treatments which save peoples lives.[/quote']

 

However, how much of these profits go towards research and not the pockets of CEOs?

[ans]

One thing to bear in mind is that years of testing is required before a drug ever goes to market' date=' and for one drug that does there are probably a dozen that don't. Years of testing was performed, but in the end the drug proved to be dangerous or ineffective.

 

Some how the drug company has to be repaid for that expense. There is very little time before a "generic" drug hits the market.... a drug that has the same chemical components which were derived by analizing the original drug. The company can sell it cheap because it didn't put any money into R&D.

 

In industry, you could compare the original IBM PC to PC clones. It took IBM years to develop the technology to bring out the PC, but once it was on the market, and the components were available to be purchased, clones could be built for a fraction of the cost.

 

If you want technology and innovation, you have to pay for R&D, and the only way to reimburse the investors, is to get the money back while you can.[/quote']

Ah yes, good point.

 

 

So how does patenting work then, and are there global laws? [am I right in thinking that patenting is to prevent other companies from stealing the 'formula' and selling at lower prices?]

[swansont]

However, how much of these profits go towards research and not the pockets of CEOs?

 

Pfiizer, Inc. spent $7.7 billion on R&D in 2004. The CEO made $16.6 million (up from $9.6 million the year before). Money spent on R&D is not profit, however - it reduces the profit for the year, but should generate profit in the future.

[coquina]

Pfiizer, Inc. spent $7.7 billion on R&D in 2004. The CEO made $16.6 million (up from $9.6 million the year before). Money spent on R&D is not profit, however - it reduces the profit for the year, but should generate profit in the future.

 

The CEO's of American companies are paid much, much higher salaries than the top paid working employees. I do not understand how one person can benefit a company so much that s/he is genuinely worth $16.6 mil.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Syntax252

Isn't prevention pretty much in the hands of the patient? What I mean is a healthy lifestyle is pretty hard to put into a bottle.

 

What about genetics and things that started at birth? How can the patient prevent those?

[rakuenso]

Gene therapy typically, however, the US government has pretty much done everything it can to prevent most of it

 

edit -therapy as in the gametic stage

[syntax252]

The CEO's of American companies are paid much, much higher salaries than the top paid working employees. I do not understand how one person can benefit a company so much that s/he is genuinely worth $16.6 mil.

 

Most of the money they make is on the increase in stock prices.

 

Their salary is usually supplanted by healthy stock options so if they run the company in such a way as to increase profits, the stock price goes up and we all make money.

[syntax252]

What about genetics and things that started at birth? How can the patient prevent those?

 

 

They can't. But neither can the drug companies.

[swansont]

The CEO's of American companies are paid much, much higher salaries than the top paid working employees. I do not understand how one person can benefit a company so much that s/he is genuinely worth $16.6 mil.

 

I don't disagree, but it's not just the pharmaceutical industry that does this. I was just rebutting the implication that higher drug prices were only lining the CEOs' pockets. The CEOs aren't headed for the poorhouse, but the magnitude of spending on R&D is much, much higher.

 

The thing is, drug companies get singled out. Unfairly, it seems - I think they are an easy target, especially for those that haven't researched the problem. People complain that spending on drugs has gone up, and it's true. But one of the reasons is that there are more drugs available, treating more ailments. A lot of drugs keep people out of the hospital, which is tremendously more expensive.

 

If your drug costs are high, you can get older generics. Yes, there is a tradeoff - the older drugs probably aren't as good. But we aren't going to get new drugs if nobody is willing to pay for the research to develop them. In a market ecoomy, that cost is passed along to the consumer.

[Skye]

So how does patenting work then, and are there global laws? [am I right in thinking that patenting is to prevent other companies from stealing the 'formula' and selling at lower prices?]

You can patent an invention that is novel, useful and not of an obvious nature. The patent lasts for twenty years. It is only valid for the countries that you get the patent in.

[swansont]

You can patent an invention that is novel, useful and not of an obvious nature. The patent lasts for twenty years. It is only valid for the countries that you get the patent in.

 

A hurdle for pharmaceutical companies is that they have to patent the drug when they discover/develop it, and it can take another 10 or more years before they can get the drug to market. It will take much of that to see if the drug lives up to whatever promise it is thought to have.

 

Another, as you imply, is the countries that don't recognize the patents and allow cheap knockoffs to be manufactured and sold.

[coquina]

A hurdle for pharmaceutical companies is that they have to patent the drug when they discover/develop it' date=' and it can take another 10 or more years before they can get the drug to market. It will take much of that to see if the drug lives up to whatever promise it is thought to have.

 

Another, as you imply, is the countries that don't recognize the patents and allow cheap knockoffs to be manufactured and sold.[/quote']

 

Unless things have changed - a patent is only good for 17 years.

[Skye]

It changed to 20 years a few years ago I think.