[anyfactor]

I want to preface this by saying I am not providing an opinion rather I am genuinely curious.

When Martin Shkreli bought the rights to Daraprim, some of his rhetoric about pharmaceutical industry sounded fair. He said that he is willing to send the drug for free to anyone who wrote to the company and he was essentially making the insurance companies pay the absurd price of the drug. He claimed no patient would ever financially suffer for the drug. He said the needed the money to pay for new research and better drugs and it was one of of lesser of evil thing he can do to R&D.

Ignoring the trickle down effect, if the government and Insurance companies in most cases ultimately pay for the price of medication wouldn't it be valid motivator to research rare diseases?

[not2b]

Insurance companies get their money from people, companies, or governments that pay for insurance. To get him an absurd amount of money, ultimately we (individuals, companies, taxpayers) have to provide it.

[anyfactor]

How does near-welfare state do innovation and research in pharmaceuticals? How do countries with universal medical care performs in terms of research and innovation and treating rare diseases?

Shkreli's ideology was when it comes to innovation in Pharma and America's patent driven capitalist nature towards it is the reason why America leads the way in innovation.

[not2b]

Basic research is mainly government funded. Pharma companies build on that research to do the final phases of drug development and they fund the trials in exchange for a monopoly if the drug pays off. Shkreli wasn't interested in funding research. He looked for drugs he could buy and jack up the price of, so he was just a parasite.

[anyfactor]

This is very interesting. On a tangential note about Shkreli. I took a break and I remembered in the Facebook senate hearing a senator said to Zuck, "Who elected you to make decisions about what stays on the internet and what doesn't?" . This is tangentially related in the matters of Shkreli. Why it would be ethical for Shkreli to take this "moral burden" of doing the right thing and invest in innovation by essentially indirectly taking money from taxpayers? I am using the word ethical because the US government doesn't think price gouging illegal. He is nobody's champion and surely he is not elected. It is a very interesting idea.

I guess for decisions about pharma research like this having an elected body or representation of an elected body is a good thing.

[mrjangles]

The answer should be obvious. Countries that do use "democratic" means to decide these things produce absolutely nothing of value. Countries that let people vote with their wallet (rather than ideology) have produced just about every important medical breakthrough in the last 50 years.

In the USA the best of the best are put in charge of tomorrows medicine, and that is why they succeed while the rest of the world is just pitiful in comparison.

[jmcgough]

Zolgensma comes to mind - one time gene therapy treatment for a rare disease (tens of thousands), billed at $2M.

Not sure if there's as viable for OP since only a few hundred people have been diagnosed.

[obilgic]

not providing an opinion on your suggestion but there is no such a thing as "government and Insurance companies paying" though, It's taxpayers.

[djbusby]

Always has been. Through insurance, cost-pass-thru, taxes, direct medication purchase, etc. So, now that it's established that it's always the individual paying into...which is the most efficient way of allocating funds out of the system? Profit? Lives saved? Less acne?