←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
275 points swores | 2 comments | 25 Apr 24 12:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hi-v-rocknroll ◴[26 Apr 24 19:23 UTC] No.40173019[source]▶
Semaglutide retails for $17k USD/year in the US but costs only $60 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that the autoinjectors are "expensive", but not $17k/year and oral forms are coming online to make this item moot. In limited circumstances, excessive profits cross into the realm of price gouging and shouldn't be allowed by regulatory enforcement.
replies(9): >>40173117 #>>40173204 #>>40173218 #>>40173309 #>>40173371 #>>40173374 #>>40173583 #>>40173707 #>>40174265 #
ProjectArcturis ◴[26 Apr 24 19:35 UTC] No.40173204[source]▶
Microsoft Office retails for $250 but costs $0 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that installation CDs are "expensive", but not $250, and online downloads make this item moot.
replies(4): >>40173261 #>>40173293 #>>40173709 #>>40174801 #
aaomidi ◴[26 Apr 24 19:40 UTC] No.40173261[source]▶
Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication that can help solve an endemic/pandemic of Obesity I wonder?

There are times where the government, can, and should drop in and buy the entire IP associated with a medication. This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject.

Most of the research here is already partially funded by the tax payer through Government funds of colleges, etc etc anyway.

This isn't even something unheard of. The US has the power to unilaterally cancel patents.

replies(8): >>40173440 #>>40173474 #>>40173584 #>>40173749 #>>40173807 #>>40173885 #>>40174558 #>>40177254 #
squigz ◴[26 Apr 24 20:04 UTC] No.40173584[source]▶
> Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication

Obviously not, silly. A product is a product. It doesn't matter if it saves millions of lives, ends them, or nothing in between - companies should be free to charge whatever they want, and if you judge them negatively for that, you're clearly in the wrong.

I can't believe I have to explain this!

replies(1): >>40173687 #
renewiltord ◴[26 Apr 24 20:12 UTC] No.40173687{3}[source]▶
The smartest thing we should do is make it profitable to build software and make it not at all profitable to save millions of lives. If we do it that way, people will work on the latter to the exclusion of the former. In fact, the more unprofitable we make the latter, the more of it we'll get.
replies(1): >>40176690 #
Dylan16807 ◴[27 Apr 24 02:46 UTC] No.40176690{4}[source]▶
Keep in mind that the point of maximum profit for a product leaves a lot of people unable to afford it. People are arguing against that kind of optimization, not arguing that private producers should lose money.
replies(1): >>40176990 #
1. renewiltord ◴[27 Apr 24 03:44 UTC] No.40176990{5}[source]▶
Ah, and what is the optimal number of people that should be unable to afford a drug?
replies(1): >>40177186 #
2. Dylan16807 ◴[27 Apr 24 04:19 UTC] No.40177186[source]▶
So I interpreted your previous comment as an argument in favor of profits, by sarcastically saying it should be unprofitable to save lives.

In which case, shouldn't I be asking you what optimal profit looks like? Why would that be a question to me, when I was listing it as a problem with profit models?

If that wasn't your argument, then I have no idea what you're arguing.

(But I will go ahead and answer, which is that individual affordability should not be a factor in buying medicine, which implies that normal patent-and-profit models are not the way to go.)