Are you really sure you want to go there?
Now, if you want to argue I would argue that why is this CEO letting a "friend" go without healthcare when CoveredCA has platinum plans at about $7000/year for an individual?
> Are you really sure you want to go there?
Yes, I absolutely am. Grown-ups in the adult world have to make choices. We have limited resources and time, and yes, sometimes that means that we can't give life saving treatments to every person that needs it.
The US aspect that is weird is when the discussion is not really about maximising value, its actually about maximising profits.
" In June, Nice said the £48,000 per year price tag of the drug, which could benefit 450 women a year, could not be justified."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11785840/NICE-refuse...
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/20/drug-giants-...
There are alternative funding models, of course. We could have the government fund all pharmaceutical research. But that has a whole host of other problems. It's really actually a difficult problem without a simple solution. You might say "well, maybe we should do a mixed public/private model of some kind", and if you said that, you'd probably arrive at about what we have now in the US.
Some purchased the rights only to rack up the prices. Just because they are a business doesn't mean they should be allowed.
What actually matters is that we have two problems:
1. How do we incentivize drug discovery?
2. How do we treat all the people that need treatment?
Right now our answer to #1 is that we allow people to charge the people that need treatment, for a limited time. This system works ok, but there may be better ones. If you have any, i'd love to hear them.
This isn't out of any malice or malfeasance, i'd like to add. This is just a rational calculation. A real person at the top somewhere is investing their own money in this, in the hopes that they'll be able to recover that in the marketplace, and presumably make a profit.
Skimming it, it doesn't really explain the means by which pharmaceutical companies succeed under weak or absent patent laws, it just says that they do. It seems to leave open the explanation, "Chemical and pharmaceutical companies in countries with weak or no patent laws make most of their money by selling into countries that have such laws." I haven't read it too carefully, though. It does say that they exaggerate their costs (presumably so as to argue for patent laws); that lots of those costs are perverse (e.g. bribing doctors); and that the patent laws inhibit innovation in lots of ways.
Meanwhile, I vaguely remember reading someone's proposal: Health insurance companies, at least in theory, basically make a bet that their customers will have good health. Let's suppose a health insurance company has 100k customers, and it's expected that 0.1% of them (let's say there's no way to tell who) will develop disease X sometime during the term of their insurance plan, and the treatment for disease X costs $50k. Then the expected total cost per customer is .001 * $50k = $50. The insurance company would therefore be fine agreeing to cover all costs of treating X for any insurance premium exceeding $50 over the term of the plan. Let's say they charge $70 to cover that particular item, and risk-averse customers agree to it. This is the classical notion of health insurance (I think in practice it's diverged significantly from that).
Once these plans are agreed to, the insurance company stands to bear an expected $50 * 100k = $5m of costs (for $7m in revenue). Now, if the insurance company has some way of, say, spending $2m to fund medical research that cuts the cost of treating X from $50k to $25k, then that would save them $2.5m in costs. (Making no reference to patenting or even selling the drug.)
Now, research is almost never guaranteed to produce the results you expect (arguably it wouldn't be called "research", merely "implementation"), and furthermore it takes time, perhaps longer than the term of the insurance plans. The uncertainty might be handled with a research consultant who makes "educated guesses" as to the expected value of different research paths. As for the time taken, (a) you could project how many insurance plans of this type you expect to have at the time the research completes, and (b) you could work something out with other insurance companies that provide similar plans. Which brings me to the biggest point:
I chose the figure of 100k customers. What if we imagine either a very large health insurance provider, or a joint effort by multiple insurance companies? Company A expects to have 5m insurance plans covering disease X when the research completes; company B expects 10m; company A will contribute $z and B will contribute $2z, or perhaps they'll just commit to funding the research and then find out how many plans they have when the research completes and divide the costs at that point. With a total of 15m customers, the research is now profitable if it costs anything less than 15m * $25 = $375m. The wider the consortium can be, the wider the range of treatments it will now become profitable to research.
That's certainly true. Pharma companies spend enormous sums of money on bribing doctors, so to speak (usually it's slightly indirect, because direct bribery is illegal). However, there's an interesting economics point here, which is that: A company should only spend a dollar on advertising it if expects to make 1 + epsilon dollars in return. Which is to say that each dollar of advertising spend shouldn't really be factored into the cost profile of the drug, since each marginal advertising dollar exists only to generate > 1 dollar of profit in return. This is a little bit difficult to wrap your head around, but it's true.
One way to summarize this is that while advertising dollars may cause prices to be higher than they otherwise would be, they don't impact what companies ought to be willing to invest in. Although, that's of course only if you assume that all drugs are equally marketable. Which is almost certainly false. Hmm...will have to think about this a bit.
> Now, if the insurance company has some way of, say, spending $2m to fund medical research that cuts the cost of treating X from $50k to $25k, then that would save them $2.5m in costs. (Making no reference to patenting or even selling the drug.)
This is an interesting idea, but one problem I see here is that it would incentivize insurance companies to silo and keep secret their medical research, because better treatment would be a competitive advantage for them, and cheaper treatment would allow them to charge lower premiums, which is also a big competitive advantage.
> The uncertainty might be handled with a research consultant who makes "educated guesses" as to the expected value of different research paths.
That's exactly what pharmaceutical companies do :).
This is just bullying, regardless of how disagreeable you find someone's position.
It is already the case that millions people lost ~20% of their disposable income because of insurance increases. In many cases it is lower a LOT of people who would normally be comfortably above the poverty line back down to the poverty line (those are the people losing the most in the individual mandate and subsidy system). And we all know that anything less than 2x the poverty line definitely feels like poverty and already cannot be escaped through savings and/or good financial sense.
So there is a choice to be made. A choice between the cost of the individual mandate and coverage on families and the fact that we want everyone to be "saved" from health problems.
This is further complicated by the fact that anyone saved from a health problem increases healthcare demands both linearly (very few health treatment really fixes things, so future demands on healthcare by the same patient will on average be higher), and exponential (a LOT of health problems are inheritable), because people demand the genetics of their kids be "respected" even when known problems exist. Afterwards, of course, it is unfair to blame the kids or the parents, even in entirely predictable problem cases. And then you have 5 kid families, where the parents were warned long before anything happened, which all have severe genetic problems resulting in brain defects. 2 cannot survive a single day without medical care and only 1 will ever live independently. But 3 would like to marry and have kids themselves (I don't blame the kids, however the parents should have known better, also we need to figure out the very sane policy of 100% refund of fertility treatments for couples without fertility problems for this reason) ... At what point is it not reasonable anymore ?