Everyone will agree that (cheap, out of patent) insulin should be available to all; it's literally lifesaving.
But then switching that to the (modern, convenient) insulin should be available to all is a bit of a slight of hand, especially when it is NOT a "you will die without this" but a "you will have more hassle taking medication to not die" scenario.
Obviously the costs involved in implementing these technologies should be part of the discussion, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to make anything that eases management of diabetes way more affordable.
The press writing "life saving insulin" headlines takes away from the ability to discuss that: within the last decade or two, modern improvements made the process of managing diabetes significantly easier and else stressful. The drug companies gave everybody a taste of an easier life, and then jacked up the price, saying "pay us more or go back to the old way." At what level should the government step in and subsidize or control this quality of life improvement? At what level should its creators be rewarded?
I am old enough to remember when the entire world took traditional insulin. It wasn't pretty.
Another piece of the insulin ad drug saga that I haven't seen many people discuss here is the distribution of drugs. The distribution from manufacturers to patients is incredibly inefficent with a variety of middle organizations increasing the cost associated with distributing the insulin and those costs are pushed down onto patients. Our website has a simplified graph showing the current model vs what we plan on doing: https://projectinsulin.org/why-insulin/
For a more in-depth look the Wall Street Journal has a great video from 2019: https://www.wsj.com/video/series/news-explainers/how-drug-pr...
I was dating 20 years from glargine (invented 1994, approved 2000), which is technically still patent protected somehow, despite biosimilars being approved. It takes a while too for Doctors to switch over when new paradigms are delivered. The real metric should be when long acting overtook intermediate acting prescriptions.
For anyone looking for history of modern insulin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045187/
I will also say that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) also have a lot of power when it comes to influencing doctors to begin prescribing new drugs.
You assume that creators are rewarded.
In Sweden you get the insulin and pens for free (that is, you've paid for it with your taxes).
And the answer/solution is somewhere in the realm of a public/private hybrid, where the government is funding short term expensive, long tail benefit research.
This is beside the point. You pay for insulin, but with taxes. In return, you don't have to deal with "do I eat or do I get insulin".
> When I say create I mean discovered not manufactured. The R&D.
The question remains: are the creators actually rewarded?
In the US most R&D now is performed by small companies, government entities, or with government money. Large companies buy this research cheap and profit from it immensely. There are cases when all new drugs that appear on the market are based on public government-funded research.
The amount of revenue that goes back into R&D decreased while revenues increased.
More data here: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
The price of these drugs NEVER went up.
Framing it as only "more hassle" or "purely convenience" really downplays the difference in the quality of life improvement the last decade has brought everyone.