Cost of developing new drugs may be lower than industry claims: trial

People who don't like prices of new drugs are free to not use those drugs.

They want to have the benefits of the existence of drugs without paying the cost of discovering the drugs and bringing them to market. It's pernicious entitlement, made more outrageous by complaining about the greed of those actually providing the new drugs.

Ah yes exciting new drugs like insulin[1] and epinephrine[2]. I'm also certain that someone going into anaphylactic shock is extremely well positioned to make a considered decision on whether they like the prices of new drugs like epinephrine or not.

[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2021/the-astronomical-pri...

[2] https://www.vox.com/policy/23658275/epipen-cost-price-how-mu...

> People who don't like prices of new drugs are free to not use those drugs.

I recall in economics class, life saving/altering medicine being one of the genuinely few products that had a perfectly inelastic demand. Not all drugs are life saving or essential but then you do have Martin Shkreli's in the world.

No, we want people to have healthcare regardless of how much money they have. The research can be paid for by taxes as we all benefit from it as a society.

That's a rather reductionist view of it. Companies don't exist in a vacuum, they have a social contract. It seems in your view there's nothing we can complain about them as we can always just not buy the drugs, freeing them of any scrutiny.

But society create rules for companies to exist within, many of which are broken, but without which the never ending search for profits would do more harm than good. Society even provides these companies with their intellectual labor, training them in high schools and universities, which is not paid back by them in full (maybe partly if that) either in grants or in compensation for these workers.

Maybe this is an offshoot of the anarcho-capitalism mindset that is popular these days where companies can do absolutely no wrong and we should all be thankful they exist to judge whether we're worthy enough to not die of diabetes.

I am of course talking about new drugs. There are lots of really great new ones.

That doesn't mean there aren't shitheads taking advantage of things like insulin etc.

But just because they're also being assholes with regards to insulin et al, doesn't mean that developing new drugs isn't genuinely very expensive, and that those drugs aren't genuinely very good.

People who don't like prices of food are free to starve.

They want to eay without paying the cost of bringing food to market. It's pernicious entitlement, made more outrageous by complaining about the greed of those actually providing the food.

I hope you never become a diabetic when you get older!

An old coworker of mine dropped dead on her lunch break because her insulin was unusable when it got too warm during shipment. Her insurance said they would not pay for another month's doses until the next month and she'd have to pay $2,000 out of pocket. Which isn't the kind of money a poor girl from the middle of nowhere South Carolina has.

And now she's dead...because she was $800 short of raising that money from a GoFundMe...

But I sure am happy that her insurance company beat their quarterly earnings estimates!

Not only do companies not exist in a vacuum, but they have no inherent right to exist in the first place. Companies are graciously allowed to exist because the state (a proxy for the people) approves them, the state grants their charter, the state provides them the corporate veil and limited liability they often abuse... Companies only exist because we the people decided that the public good they are supposed to serve outweighs their downsides. And we the people should also be able to decide that a particular company should not exist, if that company operates against the public good.

>> Ah yes exciting new drugs like insulin

The older type of insulin is $35 a month. There are exciting newer types and delivery methods of insulin that are more expensive. The drug companies developed better versions because they expected it to be profitable to do so. They will develop even better versions in the future if they expect it to be profitable to do so.

Insulin is a bad example because the old formulation is very cheap. The expensive variant is a new, better drug that was recently developed.

People going into anaphylaxis aren't buying epi pens. You buy them in advance.

That's fucked-up and I'm sorry that happened.

Clearly things could be much better.

But that doesn't mean the system as a whole isn't a huge net positive.

The right approach is tweaking, not destroying.

IDK about your philosophy, but any death that is 100% unavoidable invalidates the entire system of business that has been built.

Nothing in this world is above a life. Not money, not profit, not a quarterly bonus. Zilch, nada, zero.

I'm biased, obviously, but by principle, I refuse to accept a system that accepts avoidable deaths as a "necessary" consequence of their business model.

Yes but when you talk about system-wide decisions, it's not really clear which one will save the most lives.

If drug companies are made to sell drug x cheaper, maybe they end up charging more for drug y, or now they can no longer afford to invent drug z.

So we can look at someone dying for lack of $800 and say that's clearly a big mistake, but it's not clear what trade-offs and adjustments would make the system solve this problem without also making even worse mistakes elsewhere.

To measure our system, the best you can probably do is population-wide stats, like life expectancy, infant mortality, maybe average height (healthier populations being taller). On those metrics, we're making tremendous progress.

> IDK about your philosophy, but any death that is 100% unavoidable invalidates the entire system of business that has been built.

Assuming you meant avoidable, I don't think there is ANY system of business that avoids EVERY avoidable death. Often saving each life may be 100% possible, but it may not be possible to save every life. As a real example, I would guess most civilians in Gaza that will die in the next month could have their death avoided if their singular life were the #1 priority of every around them. However, I do not think the humanitarian crisis in Gaza can be entirely solved within the next month so that no civilian will die (even assuming cooperation from both sides and massive external aid).

The absolutism in your comments is not conducive to productive conversation. I would guess there are many people on HN that are too pro capitalism and don't recognize how it fails many people, but being absolutist to the point of impossibilities does not make you convincing.

Sorry, yes I meant avoidable.

I'm aiming this in terms of businesses and corporations, not international conflicts and wars.

Ultimately, when it comes to businesses and corporations that are in direct connection with life and death (e.g., drug companies, architecture firms, power companies, water companies, etc), then everything must be done within their power to ensure that the risk of death is minimized as much as humanly possible. Either by de-prioritizing profits, ensuring equitable access, or any other measures that are necessary.

I understand that a company has to make a profit somewhere. But a drug company that manufactures a drug for $4/pill and then selling it for $10,000/month to treat a disease that will kill without it - all while using taxpayer funds/grants/federal money to fund the research is heinous, greedy, and antithetical to what it means to be a human in a society.

Private power companies (like my local one, Georgia Power) making $2bn/year charging $180/month for a 1 bedroom, 660sqft apartment is criminal. Especially as I understand and knew many families growing up that would spend half their month with no power until their next paycheck.

It's on me that my original comment was absolutist, but it's my principles.

> I refuse to accept a system that accepts avoidable deaths as a "necessary" consequence of their business model.

Your first line doesn't just exclude systems that "accept" such things, it sounds like it excludes every system that isn't perfect.

In other words, it excludes all big systems. Your world would collapse immediately.

Though whether the line I quoted means the same thing depends on what you mean by "accepts". Is always striving for better enough? Or do you demand unrealistic expectations? Mistakes are inevitable; is "inevitable" different from "necessary"?