Study Calls for Universal Pharmacare Plan

[Smallc]

The second link is 2008 list, which won't link properly for some reason. The last item is about the implantation of a new stem cell created trachea, which seems to constitute a cure.

Disease is not easy to cure. It's better to split resources between cures and treatments and vaccines. Hopefully, you'll make progress in all three areas.

[ReeferMadness]

But how do we know the two options you have laid out are reasonable representations of how the industry works ? And therefore how can we say that, as you put it:

"The drug companies are making so much money treating disease and conditions, there is no motivation to discover cures."

Here - look at this:

The majority of the new products the industry puts out, are “me-too” drugs, which are almost identical to current treatments but “no better than drugs already on the market to treat the same condition.” Around 75 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA are me-too drugs. They can be less effective than current drugs, but as long as they’re more effective than a placebo, they can get the regulatory green light2.

link

Any other questions?

Edited September 26, 2010 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

Disease is not easy to cure. It's better to split resources between cures and treatments and vaccines. Hopefully, you'll make progress in all three areas.

Now, you just sound like an apologist for the failures of all those multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical monstrosities. You know, the ones that spend more money marketing drugs than developing them.

I know that it's tough for someone who has deeply held beliefs to let go of them. But these companies are in the business of making money, not saving lives. If they happen to do both, I'm sure that's an added bonus for them. But the latter is not necessary for the former.

And I'll take the lack of a list of cures as your tacit admission that there aren't very many.

[Michael Hardner]

Here - look at this:

link

Any other questions?

What you have shown is that the market favours small improvements that pay return on investment with lowest risk. That makes sense. But it still doesn't speak to the reality of the scenarios you laid out.

But let's leave those for the time being and go back to your main assertion: that there's no incentive to create a cure. It seemed to me that you were saying that if they had a cure, it would be in their benefit to bury it.

That's not the case, it seems. It seems like what we're saying is that curing diseases is risky and expensive, and drug companies aren't going to put money into risky research.

[Topaz]

I think we live in a circle. We're born, we put things in our bodies that contain toxins that start these diseases, sometimes unknowingly,the environment may not help us either. We get the disease get treatment, lucky, if we survive , just to put those toxins back into our bodies and the circle keeps going. People smoke too much, drink to much, medications can even hurt your body and I believe sometimes those drug companies made drugs that do hurt people but its all about the money to them and the past have proved that. I know people who have grocery bag of drugs they take! I think the doctor get sick of seeing them and they just write a prescription just to get rid of them. Take too many drugs can and will hurt your body by not letting your body heal itself, those radicals with our bodies will take over and cancer or other diseases will grow.

[bush_cheney2004]

...However, the real problem isn't the costs, it's the underlying economics of health care. The drug companies are making so much money treating disease and conditions, there is no motivation to discover cures.

Oh...now I get it...the "Universal Pharmacare Plan" in Canada means that the Americans will continue to foot the R&D bill. Thought so.....

[GostHacked]

Oh...now I get it...the "Universal Pharmacare Plan" in Canada means that the Americans will continue to foot the R&D bill. Thought so.....

When it's about the US, you make it about Canada. Now when it IS about Canada, you make it about the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

When it's about the US, you make it about Canada. Now when it IS about Canada, you make it about the US.

Nixon is about Canada? FDA is about Canada? Time magazine is about Canada?

I don't think so....

[ReeferMadness]

What you have shown is that the market favours small improvements that pay return on investment with lowest risk. That makes sense. But it still doesn't speak to the reality of the scenarios you laid out.

The scenario that I laid out is an example of how the market favors small improvements with low risk over large improvements with greater risk.

But let's leave those for the time being and go back to your main assertion: that there's no incentive to create a cure. It seemed to me that you were saying that if they had a cure, it would be in their benefit to bury it.

That's not the case, it seems.

Obviously, that might vary from case to case but in general, I would say it is to their financial benefit to not have a cure. However, if it could be proven they'd buried a cure, the resulting public backlash could wipe them out.

It seems like what we're saying is that curing diseases is risky and expensive, and drug companies aren't going to put money into risky research.

Which I'm sure is prudent from the standpoint of the drug companies and their investors. However, the implication for the rest of that is that relying on drug companies to develop drugs that will make us well is not a good option. It will tend to keep us alive and sick (and paying) longer.

A better option would be to publicly fund research with an emphasis on patient results, not basic research.

Or perhaps award a large cash prize based on proven results. Example: For a proven way to cure or prevent 80% of lung cancer, the company is awarded the health care savings for a period of 3 years.

[ReeferMadness]

Oh...now I get it...the "Universal Pharmacare Plan" in Canada means that the Americans will continue to foot the R&D bill. Thought so.....

The readily available information was about the US. I don't think that the basic economics of the pharmaceutical companies change at the 49th parallel.

[Michael Hardner]

A better option would be to publicly fund research with an emphasis on patient results, not basic research.

It might be a better option, if we could count on results from that option. Is it too risky ? Is that why we don't do it ?

[bush_cheney2004]

The readily available information was about the US.

Of course...as always!

I don't think that the basic economics of the pharmaceutical companies change at the 49th parallel.

They sure as hell do...I get to subsidize the actual costs of your pharma drugs.

[BubberMiley]

They sure as hell do...I get to subsidize the actual costs of your pharma drugs.

And to that, we say "Suckerrrrrr!"

[bush_cheney2004]

And to that, we say "Suckerrrrrr!"

...and to that we say "Patent".

[ReeferMadness]

It might be a better option, if we could count on results from that option. Is it too risky ? Is that why we don't do it ?

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, in 2010 there will be 76,000 people in this country who die from cancer alone. What's too risky is relying on the free market to solve difficult problems.

By definition, you can't count on the results of any research. If you could, the results would already be known and you wouldn't need research.

[Smallc]

We don't only rely on the private sector to do research. That's where your hypothesis falls apart.

[Michael Hardner]

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, in 2010 there will be 76,000 people in this country who die from cancer alone. What's too risky is relying on the free market to solve difficult problems.

By definition, you can't count on the results of any research. If you could, the results would already be known and you wouldn't need research.

So... my question... why don't we do it ?

[dre]

So... my question... why don't we do it ?

Because we have already partially implemented it. We already do block negotiation with pharmy companies at the provincial level and a bit at the federal level as well. This has partially mitigated the problem which of course has the effect of delaying more comprehensive action.

The problem with a Universal Plan paid for by the government is figuring out what it should cover, and making sure pharma companies are not allowed to market directly to end users, and making sure the current paradigm where the pharmy companies offer doctors incentives to prescribe certain drugs.

The medical/pharmy industry will not stop until literally every single condition that disrupts your life in even the smallest way is classified as a disease, and theres a drug you can buy to "cure" it. Fat? take this drug. In a bad mood? Take this drug. Cant pay attention? Take this drug. Want more friends? Take this drug.

So you have to limit it to drugs that you doctor says are MEDICALLY NECESSARY... the problem is that doctors are constantly recieve bribes and payouts from the pharmy industry so you cant trust them to make this judgement anymore.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, the question was in response to ReeferMadness's assertion that we should be funding direct research.

[dre]

Actually, the question was in response to ReeferMadness's assertion that we should be funding direct research.

We do fund research through numerous different avenues.

For example, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is a patchwork of about 15 individual pseudo-agencies that fund health research, and support over 9000 scientists working on health related projects including medicine, and just about everything else you can think of.

And the Centre for Applied Genomics which works as part of the Hospital for Sick Children, and also runs a Science and Technology Innovation Centre working on things like Bioinformatics which have the potential to spawn a whole generation of new medicine.

Those are just two, but theres about a dozen such agencies in Canada.

[wyly]

Really.

Come down with any one of these and there is a little "ka-ching" sound in the offices of health ministries, pharmaceutical giants and doctors. Because you're going to be using their drugs and services for a long time, maybe for as long as you live.

what's wrong with people making money, everyone needs to feed themselves and family.... Edited September 27, 2010 by wyly

[ReeferMadness]

We don't only rely on the private sector to do research. That's where your hypothesis falls apart.

Yeah, good point. Except for one small thing. We're always being told that the reason that drugs cost a bloody fortune is that those poor old drug companies spend so much on research. So I suppose the answer is for drug companies to get out of the research business (which they're obviously lousy at anyway) and cut the price of the drugs.

Excellent idea, smallc!

[wyly]

Yeah, good point. Except for one small thing. We're always being told that the reason that drugs cost a bloody fortune is that those poor old drug companies spend so much on research. So I suppose the answer is for drug companies to get out of the research business (which they're obviously lousy at anyway) and cut the price of the drugs.

Excellent idea, smallc!

that's just not sensible...are you part of the conspiracy behind every tree group?...research is very expensive the idea that some MD can sit in a lab and invent cures all by him/herself is delusional, it takes thousands of people working for many different companies working on common problems...no one works for nothing, everyone needs to put food on the table, drug treatments aren't going to magically happen on their own...

[ReeferMadness]

We do fund research through numerous different avenues.

For example, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is a patchwork of about 15 individual pseudo-agencies that fund health research, and support over 9000 scientists working on health related projects including medicine, and just about everything else you can think of.

And the Centre for Applied Genomics which works as part of the Hospital for Sick Children, and also runs a Science and Technology Innovation Centre working on things like Bioinformatics which have the potential to spawn a whole generation of new medicine.

Those are just two, but theres about a dozen such agencies in Canada.

Either it isn't enough or they're funding the wrong things. Also, some portion (I wasn't able to find out a percentage)of the CIHR funded research is done in conjunction with "industry partners", in other words the pharmaceutical companies.

As for a whole new generation of medicine, I'm getting sick of the good news almost-breakthroughs. How about we get some actual results and then celebrate. It seems like at least once a month I read about some miraculous cancer research discovery. And yet cancer is still the leading killer of Canadians.

Go figure.

[ReeferMadness]

what's wrong with people making money, everyone needs to feed themselves and family....

what's wrong is when my doctor comes to me and proposes to put me on medication for life. I don't feel like feeding some pharmaceutical giant's bottom line permanently. Not to mention the side effects. Thanks, anyway, though.

Edited September 27, 2010 by ReeferMadness