Life saving drug too expensive

eth0 · 25-04-2012 11:57PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In a world and health systems of scarce resources, difficult choices often have to be made to achieve the greater good. Obviously this is difficult to hear for anyone suffering from cancer that could be treated by this drug, but there is no point in sugar coating the truth.

It wouldn't be so bad if the scarcity of the said resources wasn't purely artificial to help big business. Once production gets going most of this stuff takes feckall to make.

25-04-2012 11:57PM

themadchef wrote: »

The drug cost €85,0000, sure.

Can anyone me the cost of a human life?

Say my brothers life? Or your mother, if she had this cancer... what would that be worth to you?

Thing is, it may not even work. This is the last chance saloon for these people. No more treatment............. Hell of a situation to be in for all families involved and i fell sorry for them because our fúcking government has no problem shoveling money out for advisors on this, that and the other, groups, schemes, and all sorts of crapology. When it comes tothe people, actual people of this country (and from what i heard in the radio there are 200 suffering with this condition who would possible be eligble for treatment) they really couldint care less.

People dying dont have the time to wait for patents to run out, or govenments to make up their minds. They dont have options or choices, or hope, but today they had Joe fúcking Duffy, and i hate Joe

Yes we are broke, but, surely to fúck we should be able to put a few €€ on the table for the dying? Why cant we negotiate with these companies? Where is our Michael o Leary!!!!

This isn't really a life-saver, 3 studies were done and in one it didn't manage to shrink the tumour in even 10% of patients. It's a pretty slight life life extender on average with pretty nasty side-effects.

oppenheimer1 · 25-04-2012 11:58PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no idea.

They will have a patent for 20 years (I think) so surely they could recoup multiple of the cost of R&D.

They are not a charity, and pharma companies don't develop drugs for the greater good but to enhance their balance sheets. Not only does this drug have to cover the cost of its R&D but also the cost of drugs that failed. It also has to generate a profit for the pharma company.

Many of the easy wins in pharmaceuticals seem to have been achieved in terms of the development of drugs. Treatments are becoming ever more complex therefore this kind of thing (ie drugs not available on the medical card) will be a feature of the future.

oppenheimer1 · 25-04-2012 11:59PM

themadchef wrote: »

This is the spin that cracks me up.

Millions on parking spaces and someones kid dying because we as a country cant affords to pay for that kids cancer treatment?

Please....

Im sick of it.

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

eth0 wrote: »

It wouldn't be so bad if the scarcity of the said resources wasn't purely artificial to help big business. Once production gets going most of this stuff takes feckall to make.

The drug is not expensive due to its scarcity, but due to the enormous cost of developing such treatments. The reason the generic/out of patent drugs are so cheap is because those pharma companies only copy the "recipe". They don't have to pay for development - which is also risky, and doesn't pay off more often than not.

26-04-2012 12:01AM

I just don't understand why no-one here starts a company to research and develop some drugs and take just a small profit off the top.

26-04-2012 12:02AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

We should all skip a meal a day so that experimental medication can be more freely available.

themadchef · 26-04-2012 12:04AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

Yes i completly agree with you. It needs to take parking spaces, unvouched expenses, and needless blank cheque writing off the books though.

We need a slash and burn on all departments, someone ruthless who knows where the stupid money is going. No one has the balls though, everyone is too comfy.

\ Anyway, back to dying.

Jimoslimos · 26-04-2012 12:06AM

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that this seems like a sneaky underhand way for pharmaceutical companies to promote their drugs? UK/Ireland/Europe have tighter regs on advertising than the US (see antidepressants for dogs).

Generate publicity and have desperate patients hounding doctors for the latest 'wonder-drug'. After a few years, the actual true benefits can be seen with large scale meta-analysis of several studies, but at this stage the hype and or patent has disappeared to be replaced by another

Ipullimab actually seems like quite a dangerous drug with possible severe side-effects, looks to have a similar mode of action to the drug given in the notorious Phase 1 clinical trial in Northwick park, where all participants suffered severe organ failure.

eth0 · 26-04-2012 12:07AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They are not a charity, and pharma companies don't develop drugs for the greater good but to enhance their balance sheets. Not only does this drug have to cover the cost of its R&D but also the cost of drugs that failed. It also has to generate a profit for the pharma company.

Many of the easy wins in pharmaceuticals seem to have been achieved in terms of the development of drugs. Treatments are becoming ever more complex therefore this kind of thing (ie drugs not available on the medical card) will be a feature of the future.

I have read a good few of your posts and I'm starting to think you're just a somewhat cunning troll.

Every single time there is a post about some new tax the government is to introduce you'll be out saying how great it is, if there's austerity you'll be saying how necessary it is and how it will get out of trouble. If the power that be or a big company is screwing over an ordinary man on the street you'll be taking the side of the company or the PTB.

If you aren't infact trolling or getting a kick out of playing devils advocate i'd love to know where you'd get these very right-wing yet pro-high taxation views from

Chuck Stone · 26-04-2012 12:08AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

pharma companies don't develop drugs for the greater good but to enhance their balance sheets.

So perhaps we should look at alternatives to the current system?

Here's one suggestion.

Put a small tax on all medicine and pool it in a global trust fund that handsomely awards innovation in pharmacology. Then breakthroughs drugs would be patent free and open for anyone to produce which would drive the costs down.

Doc · 26-04-2012 12:09AM

poppyvally wrote: »

Thank you Corkfeen I'm not good with the links. I suppose I should have known better than to put such a serious post into a moronic forum.

You should have know better then to put up vague unsubstantiated clams on the most popular forum on Boards. Without a link to show us what you say is true or telling us how this has personaly affected you why should anyone take the word of someone who has only 42 posts to their name? You didn't even tell us the name of the drug.
Although most people on this forum have a joke about most subject they also know when something is serious and normally behave accordingly.

oppenheimer1 · 26-04-2012 12:11AM

themadchef wrote: »

Yes i completly agree with you. It needs to take parking spaces, unvouched expenses, and needless blank cheque writing off the books though.

We need a slash and burn on all departments, someone ruthless who knows where the stupid money is going. No one has the balls though, everyone is too comfy.

\ Anyway, back to dying.

I'm not saying waste shouldn't be eliminated - of course it should. Health is an emotive topic however and the way some people go on on this forum you would think thats the only thing the government should spend our money on. We spend enough on health as its stands. The problem in health is what we spend our money on - wages for hospital nurses, doctors and consultants.

Slashing and burning on departments would hurt people too btw, and not just civil servants but ordinary citizens who depend on the variety of services the State provides.

IM0 · 26-04-2012 12:13AM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Use sunscreen :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xavFb4WH7o0

Jimoslimos · 26-04-2012 12:18AM

eth0 wrote: »

If you aren't infact trolling or getting a kick out of playing devils advocate i'd love to know where you'd get these very right-wing yet pro-high taxation views from

Oh I agree with him also (oppenheimer1), and I'm far from right-wing (see my arguments against Libertarianism).

It's not Devil's Advocatism but rather injecting a little bit of reality into the situation. Yes, it would be wonderful to pump all our money into prolonging a dying person's life by 2-3yrs, but then you adversely affect the economy and funding (say education) in other areas, which then leads to less wealth generated in the future = less money to spend on health.

eth0 · 26-04-2012 12:22AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

The drug is not expensive due to its scarcity, but due to the enormous cost of developing such treatments. The reason the generic/out of patent drugs are so cheap is because those pharma companies only copy the "recipe". They don't have to pay for development - which is also risky, and doesn't pay off more often than not.

if they're not actually scarce then everyone who needs it should get one by right but milking a massive amount from rich people who can afford it is obviously a more important goal than trying to save everyone.

brilliant. we as human being should give ourselves a massive pat on the back for how far we'd go out of our way to help our fellow man.

oppenheimer1 · 26-04-2012 12:23AM

eth0 wrote: »

I have read a good few of your posts and I'm starting to think you're just a somewhat cunning troll.

Every single time there is a post about some new tax the government is to introduce you'll be out saying how great it is, if there's austerity you'll be saying how necessary it is and how it will get out of trouble. If the power that be or a big company is screwing over an ordinary man on the street you'll be taking the side of the company or the PTB.

If you aren't infact trolling or getting a kick out of playing devils advocate i'd love to know where you'd get these very right-wing yet pro-high taxation views from

PTB?

Looked through my posts, I didn't realise I had a fan.

Not that I have to explain my views to anyone, but my opinions are grounded in pragmatism, and are not of the left or the right. I do not like the fact that drug companies cream profit off the ill and the desperate. Money is a great motivator however and without the prospect of a windfall for companies for development of these treatments we would be relying solely on the output of universities for the development of new drugs. Progress would be painfully slow.

Its about the greater good, would you like to see drugs developed now with the prospect of them becoming cheap in 20 years, or would you like to see them never developed at all?

I do think the patent system for drugs is now out moded and a better, fairer system needs to be introduced. I have no idea what the system should be or how it would work - and most crucially, would it lead to the development of new effective cheaper treatments more quickly than the system we have now.

flutered · 26-04-2012 12:27AM

xflyer wrote: »

Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the real world where money talks. Welcome to the real world where you find your child has a problem but it's a two year wait for treatment. But when you have money to pay for it, it's a case of 'Will next Monday, do for you sir?'

That's life!

Welcome to my world.

i have to agree with you, because of my illness i have a medical card, i needed an mri in limerick, i was told it would take 16 months on the card, even tho there are three machines in the city, (thanks jp for two of them), i was told to get a letter from my gp saying that i needed one, i rang cork on a monday morning i was asked what day and what time would suit me this week, (thank you credit union).

eth0 · 26-04-2012 12:28AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Oh I agree with him also (oppenheimer1), and I'm far from right-wing (see my arguments against Libertarianism).

It's not Devil's Advocatism but rather injecting a little bit of reality into the situation. Yes, it would be wonderful to pump all our money into prolonging a dying person's life by 2-3yrs, but then you adversely affect the economy and funding (say education) in other areas, which then leads to less wealth generated in the future = less money to spend on health.

ah the grim reality of the sityeation. that seems another one of his battle cries alright.

it wouldn't be wonderful to pump all our money into a dieing person's life but the problem here is that big pharmaceutical companies are demanding too much money be pumped into them for something very simple apparently justified by vague promises of new research by the said company while they're infact cleaning up a massive profit for themselves.

these private companies have far too much control for their own good and there should be more of this kind of carry on: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277001285472654.html

Annabella1 · 26-04-2012 12:33AM

We have to accept that there are finite resources in healthcare.The Croke Park Deal means salaries are untouchable which means less resources in a shrinking budget towards these so called 'super drugs'.The UK have had this rationing system of drugs for over a decade.
It has nothing to do with rich or poor.There is no way the VHI would fund a drug costing 85k per annum given their financial situation
Demand in healthcare is endless...resources are finite

26-04-2012 12:37AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that this seems like a sneaky underhand way for pharmaceutical companies to promote their drugs? UK/Ireland/Europe have tighter regs on advertising than the US (see antidepressants for dogs).

Hate watching sports from US TV sources, at the end I just want some KFC and Viagra.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So perhaps we should look at alternatives to the current system?

Here's one suggestion.

Put a small tax on all medicine and pool it in a global trust fund that handsomely awards innovation in pharmacology. Then breakthroughs drugs would be patent free and open for anyone to produce which would drive the costs down.

What about countries that opt-out? Would the money only be paid after the R+D and trials etc. etc.? How many countries would it have to be approved in before money was released? Lot of risk on the developers' part.

oppenheimer1 · 26-04-2012 12:39AM

eth0 wrote: »

ah the grim reality of the sityeation. that seems another one of his battle cries alright.

it wouldn't be wonderful to pump all our money into a dieing person's life but the problem here is that big pharmaceutical companies are demanding too much money be pumped into them for something very simple apparently justified by vague promises of new research by the said company while they're infact cleaning up a massive profit for themselves.

these private companies have far too much control for their own good and there should be more of this kind of carry on: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277001285472654.html

I think the bit in bold shows your total ignorance of the pharmaceutical industry. The development of these drugs is far from simple and takes many many years, from first breakthrough to clinical trial and general availability. Many drugs fail in this process along the way - many more than make it to pharmacy shelf. This process is enormously expensive and highly risky, many thousands of highly skilled people could work on the development of a new drug. The reward for the company at the end is the prospect of a large profit - otherwise the whole process wouldn't be worthwhile.

Do you think pharma should be nationalised globally?

poppyvally · 26-04-2012 12:40AM

aventis gave the hse free treatments for 1yr + 6 months to get their fingers out but they (HSE) declined to put it on the medical card, TOOOO expensive to save the lives of their citizens. That is the measure of our govt. I voted for the bastards but never again. I dont know who'll i'll vote for next time.. I'm sad and totally disillusioned.

Jimoslimos · 26-04-2012 12:40AM

eth0 wrote: »

it wouldn't be wonderful to pump all our money into a dieing person's life but the problem here is that big pharmaceutical companies are demanding too much money be pumped into them for something very simple apparently justified by vague promises of new research by the said company while they're infact cleaning up a massive profit for themselves.

I have been critical of practises by big pharma companies before and will continue to be, but they take massive risks which if they backfire can be disastrous. The company responsible for developing the TGN1412 drug which left all the participants seriously ill in London a few years back went bust. So with great risk there also must come great reward.

Amendment of the patent system would help, something graded perhaps so income doesn't stop abruptly after a number of years.

At the end of the day (cliche!), we all die, no drug will ever stop that from happening so we need to draw a line somewhere as to what gets funded. Efficacy of the treatment alongside economic considerations are a reality of our health system. Emotion isn't.

Jimoslimos · 26-04-2012 12:49AM

I'll outline a hypothetical situation,

Drug A: Increases survival rates by 15% - Cost: €8000 per patient
Drug B: Increases survival rates by 10% - Cost: €800 per patient

Which do you choose? In an ideal world with unlimited funds it's A every time, but in the real world you examine the relative benefit versus cost.

Chuck Stone · 26-04-2012 01:04AM

I was just throwing the idea out there as an idea (I've read it suggested somewhere so it's not my idea)

Deleted User wrote: »

What about countries that opt-out?

I guess it wouldn't be in their interests to opt out.

Would the money only be paid after the R+D and trials etc. etc.?

Yes.

How many countries would it have to be approved in before money was released? Lot of risk on the developers' part.

No idea. Haven't got a crystal ball.

Just trying to explore alternatives because these types of threads have a formula and it goes a little something like this...

A. ****in system doin bad stuff - rabble rabble rabble
B. But that's just the way things are - justify justify justify

A. yeah but - rabble rabble rabble
B. But that's just the way things are Justify justify justify

mackg · 26-04-2012 01:07AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So perhaps we should look at alternatives to the current system?

Here's one suggestion.

Put a small tax on all medicine and pool it in a global trust fund that handsomely awards innovation in pharmacology. Then breakthroughs drugs would be patent free and open for anyone to produce which would drive the costs down.

The problem isn't the money that's spent on developing the medicines you see in pharmacies or in hospitals, the real cost is in the drugs that fail at various stages before FDA or IMB or whatever approval. A tiny fraction of drugs that enter testing ever see animal testing let alone get approved. The system you outline would offer a tiny chance for those involved getting rewarded in any way plus the cost of R&D is huge. On top of this the production of drugs is costly and the quality control necessary to ensure products meet spec is large. The fact is the big Pharma companies are the only ones that can afford to take the financial hits that are necessary to get to the stage where the profits are recouped.

Chuck Stone · 26-04-2012 01:31AM

mackg wrote: »

The system you outline would offer a tiny chance for those involved getting rewarded in any way plus the cost of R&D is huge.

I guess you could structure the award funds in such a way that they cover the costs of all research.

On top of this the production of drugs is costly and the quality control necessary to ensure products meet spec is large.

Well there is little prodding needed to get generic manufacturers in on the feeding frenzy when drugs are out of patent. Indeed the companies with patents try everything to prevent generics producing the drug (claiming that they are copying processes etc) because it is so lucrative.

The fact is the big Pharma companies are the only ones that can afford to take the financial hits that are necessary to get to the stage where the profits are recouped.

Isn't pharma one of the most profitable industries in the world? Someone is getting horse-fucked somewhere and I'd say the cost of drugs is where the fat margins are made.

All I'm suggesting is that we look at alternative models and maybe even try them out. I was reading somewhere that pharma innovation is stagnating too (will look for the article).

opinion guy · 26-04-2012 01:31AM

mackg wrote: »

The problem isn't the money that's spent on developing the medicines you see in pharmacies or in hospitals, the real cost is in the drugs that fail at various stages before FDA or IMB or whatever approval. A tiny fraction of drugs that enter testing ever see animal testing let alone get approved. The system you outline would offer a tiny chance for those involved getting rewarded in any way plus the cost of R&D is huge. On top of this the production of drugs is costly and the quality control necessary to ensure products meet spec is large. The fact is the big Pharma companies are the only ones that can afford to take the financial hits that are necessary to get to the stage where the profits are recouped.

You do know they spend as much on advertising as they do on R&D ?

Capt'n Midnight · 26-04-2012 01:37AM

ted1 wrote: »

New drugs cost hundreds of million to develop, they need yo make their money back. What are you voting no on?

Complete Bolllix.

They spend three times as much on advertising as they do on R&D

The biggest customers for new drugs are governments / public health systems, and private health care because governments can't afford the drugs.

If the drug companies were nationalised globally and patents shared out the overall costs would drop to a fraction of what they are now, especially since cost of production is so close to zero that once your costs are made it's gravy train time.

It's a shame that so many people die from counterfeit medicines because of the profit model

Chuck Stone · 26-04-2012 01:41AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the drug companies were nationalised globally and patents shared out the overall costs would drop to a fraction of what they are now, especially since cost of production is so close to zero that once your costs are made it's gravy train time.

Nationalise the research part of it maybe?

Let the manufacturers compete in the free market I reckon.

Life saving drug too expensive

Comments