[coretx]

No, because patients deserve the best or most effective drug, not the cheapest. Unless you'd like to put a price on human life that is. Also, meds don't hit the market before they are tested... Testing meds is part of the resource allocation problems because cheap & effective off-label use won't be researched & tested because there is not enough money to be made...

[kwhitefoot]

> Unless you'd like to put a price on human life that is.

If you have some magical formula that would avoid doing I'm sure that NICE would love to hear from you.

https://www.nice.org.uk/

[Aerroon]

The best or most effective isn't always in consideration. At least outside of the US, you get what has been approved for care and only if it's not too cost prohibitive.

If governments were making their own generic drugs and sold them at cost then it would help avoid situations like Martin Shkreli. The drug wasn't protected by a patent, it's just that nobody else produced that drug. In my opinion this seems like a reasonable thing for governments to do.

Also, the best treatments aren't always available in this first place. Eg (at least a few years ago, don't know today) Adderall was illegal as a treatment here. Some EU countries, until recently, even treated methylphenidate like that.

[fragmede]

> Unless you'd like to put a price on human life that is.

It's been put at about $10 million, for the purposes of EPA regulations. Insurance companies have their own formula, from a couple hundred thousand into the millions, and healthcare users QUALYs - quality-adjusted life years, and those are priced at $50,000-$150,000.

[alan-hn]

Tell that to the insurance companies that keep denying my meds

[coretx]

Migrate...

[alan-hn]

To somewhere with a nationalized health system? Why can't we just have that here