[rightos]

It's a difficult balance to strike - you want the companies to keep developing drugs, you want onerous regulation on those drugs to make sure they're produced and tested for safety and efficacy. But then you want them to be cheap for patients and insurance companies.

The best solution is probably to simply drop patent extensions for these things and allow generic drug manufacturers to do what they do best, but if you do that too early you risk damaging funding for new drug development. Too late and you wind up with companies just building up piles of cash like we have today. You need to hit that point of "we need to develop new drugs to make a profit" - what that is, I'm not sure.

[knieveltech]

You want pharma companies to keep doing drug discovery why not ban outright any kind of marketing or advertising for their products? R&D spend across the industry is a fraction of the marketing spend. Think of all the good research that money would fund once pharma companies were freed from spending it on advertising.

[djhworld]

Whenever I visit the US I find it insane how much advertising for drugs is shown on TV, with the usual "ask your doctor about..." disclaimer at the end.

Why aren't more American's up in arms about this?

[hansthehorse]

Only two countries allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising -- New Zealand and the USA.

[QuarterReptile]

Maybe we know how to avoid the ads better?

[propogandist]

doctors told them they were being rebellious & put them on medications

[rightos]

Seems like a reasonable idea to me, has anyone attempted to apply some of the less controversial possible solutions here in the US? Like shorter patent lifetimes or a ban or reduction on drug advertising?

[ajmurmann]

Things definitely have been tried. However, companies find loop holes and frequently things get worse after. Check out this amazing episode of econtalk: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/robin_feldman_o.htm...

[amyjess]

Ideally, the government should just straight-up pay companies to do drug discovery using something similar to cost-plus defense contracts (and establish DCAA-style auditing practices to keep them honest).

Establish strict price controls, ban drug patents, and make production volume guarantees a hard condition of receiving federal drug discovery money. And the money should be large enough to be worth it. Ideally, 90%+ of a drug company's income should be from federal contracts and not from sales.

And if that turns out to not be feasible, just nationalize them. The federal government can hire drug-discovery chemists and manufacture the drugs themselves.

[rightos]

That's a very left-wing view of things - I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I think there are far less drastic changes that can be made to achieve a comparable result.

You'll have a hard time selling a plan like that to anyone even slightly right leaning - think about it politically for a second. The government decides what drug development gets priority? Remember the death panels talk from a few years ago?

It's viable, but involves a lot of trust in government, so much that even as a fairly left-leaning person myself I'd have to think twice about it.

[axonic]

I agree that trusting the government is out of the question, perhaps we could try an open source solution. Publish drug data, studies, manufacturing knowledge, and all of the usual pages of warnings, indications, contraindications, pharmacokinetics, etc. GitDrugs.org? I think India might have the right strategy with prioritizing human need over economic factors, at least in the short term. I think the problem with funding is a multidisciplinary one, unrelated to how much they can charge for the product. If we can figure out how to match problems->researchers->funding efficiently and effectively, finding drugs and researching existing ones won't be a problem.

[amyjess]

> The government decides what drug development gets priority?

This might become necessary if we're to avoid an antibiotic crisis. Bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics at a greater rate than antibiotics are being developed. The problem isn't that we've tapped out what antibiotics can do, but rather that drug companies have little to no interest in developing antibiotics because there's very little money in it. Antibiotics are un-sexy drugs that don't make for good marketing campaigns.

Ultimately, if we want to continue to have effective antibiotics, a large entity with no profit motive, nigh infinite money, and a monopoly on force (i.e. the government) will have to get involved.

[x0x0]

We're already well down that road via NIH and DOD funding decisions.

[IanCal]

It depends if you think it would stop other funding of drug development.

[dclowd9901]

My problem is: It's in the public interest for these drugs to exist, but how do we keep drug companies from becoming an industrial complex ala Lockheed/Boeing?

They should be non-profits.

[kazinator]

Developing drugs is very expensive. It takes years of research, most of which fails. I.e. out of the various molecules being researched, only few actually make it through all the trials and approval and get to market.

Due to the risk, investors are looking for high returns from successful drugs.

[belorn]

Due to that risk, the wast majority of base research aren't funded by investors. NiH funding for medical research is the single biggest researcher in the world, with a annual research budget of $26.4 billion. All that is paid double by the citizens, first through taxes and then again through insurance/drug cost.

Now imagine if we had a regulation that both forbade universities from issuing patents and limited the price of any drug that is initially based on public funded research.

[kazinator]

Would we also have to refer to the periodic table of the element's as "Mendeleev's Table", or could we not emulate the USSR to such details?