[throw18376]

look, if someone has actually have a new drug that works like antipsychotics but doesn't have the nightmare side effects, i am very happy for that person to get filthy rich.

if this pans out the way they hope, by all means give the lead guy a couple yachts or whatever he wants. space tourism, gold statue of himself, whatever. big bonuses all the way down the org chart.

there's the potential to reduce an absolutely staggering amount of human misery here. frankly (again if this pans out) our homelessness crisis would look very different if this drug had existed 20 years ago, when the mechanism of action was discovered.

the people who cared enough and took a huge concentrated risk to do this should just get rich, if in fact it pans out.

[throwup238]

> the people who cared enough and took a huge concentrated risk to do this should just get rich, if in fact it pans out.

They already did. Bristol Myer Squibb acquired the company behind this drug for $14 billion earlier this year.

[codedokode]

Homeless people are unlikely to pay $20 000 per year which is the price of the drug though.

[toxicdevil]

> Homeless people are unlikely to pay $20 000 per year which is the price of the drug though.

True, but think about all the people who are fully functioning and productive members of society and got afflicted with this disease. This med will increase the likelihood that they continue to be highly functioning and compliant with the treatment. This will allow them to keep their jobs and cognitive abilities.

Every person I know with this disease has trouble sticking to meds due to side effects, and not sticking to the meds and relapsing multiple times is probably one of the most important reasons that their condition regresses.

[lotusZZZ]

It’s not just the side effects that cause people with schizophrenia to be non-compliant with meds. Many people with schizophrenia stop taking meds because they do not think they are sick - anosognosia. It’s why a longer lasting injectable is often recommended over daily oral meds.

[rs999gti]

> longer lasting injectable is often recommended over daily oral meds

Both are recommended. Why? Daily meds are not only effective, but remind the patient that they have an illness that needs daily maintenance, it makes them involved in the treatment. Long acting injectables are added monthly to prevent backslides in case the patient forgets or does not want to take their medicine.

[hackernewds]

It would be nice if every one could afford it. And people were still filthy rich, but not necessarily exorbitantly rich? It cost the company discovering the drug around $11M

[EasyMark]

Yep the poor people will only have to wait 20 years or so for the patent to expire. I’m happy it will help people but I can still get angry at companies that will watch people die and suffer, give a shrug, and continue counting their billions.

[BurningFrog]

If they're homeless because of schizophrenia, and the drug cures that, $20k/year is easily a profitable investment!

[rs999gti]

No

[sqeaky]

How completely inhumane. From a strictly numerical perspective you are correct, but it is disgusting and vile.

I know plenty of people without mental health issues who can't get jobs that make 20k and I know a few with degrees who can't.

Making healthcare a for-profit venture guarantees that poor people suffer disproportionately. Making chemicals is cheap and most of the innovation happens on government grants and funding. A government run healthcare system is obvious a cheaper solution with less suffering.

[shiroiushi]

The idea is for the government to spend that $20k/year somehow (and hopefully get a big discount by buying in bulk). Spending that much on countless homeless people, and turning a large fraction of them into productive citizens, isn't "vile" at all: it would make the homeless people much happier for one thing, but would also save the rest of society a lot of money by not having to deal with the negative effects of their homelessness, plus increase the GDP and thus the tax base, easily paying for itself.

[sqeaky]

I don't think that's what they were advocating, the way I read it they were saying that people should spend that money on themselves and neglected the idea of people who couldn't afford it. But yeah if the idea is for the government to lift people out of poverty that's great we just haven't seen much of that in this country, or at least not as much as I think we could practically afford.

[BurningFrog]

I wasn't really advocating anything, just pointing out that the math works.

Who might pay the $20k of course varies a lot, depending on the health care system.

One thing I've learned over the years is to not try "reading between the lines" to suss out what people are "really saying". It's just too error prone, and you rarely end up communicating.

[shiroiushi]

>the way I read it they were saying that people should spend that money on themselves

I would think it's plainly obvious that schizophrenic homeless people don't have $20k to spend on anything, so I didn't interpret it that way.

[bawolff]

Fact is, government run public health does look at numbers at the end of the day. A medicine that increases "value" (however you define that) more than it costs is more likely to get gov funding.

Turning away from the elephant in the room because it is "vile" doesn't help anyone and just entrenches the status quo.

[sqeaky]

You're looking at this in a very American Centric way, a lot of other countries figure out how medicines for very low costs. When that happens the numbers change a lot.

[bawolff]

I'm from one of those other countries. Yes, its not as insane as america, but budgets and cost vs value tradeoffs are still a thing.

[chpatrick]

Drugs cost money to develop whether you like it or not, the only question is how exactly the money flows.

If it was taxpayer funded research it would still cost this much.

[tptacek]

Making a public policy argument for subsidizing a helpful medical intervention isn't "disgusting and vile".

[oatmeal1]

> Making healthcare a for-profit venture guarantees that poor people suffer disproportionately.

This is true of literally every industry; the poor always get less than the rich. Why not nationalize everything so that the poor always get the same as the rich? Surely if the government can run healthcare it can run toy shops and grocery stores.

[consteval]

Correct, this does happen in every industry. But industries are not created equal. Some are really important, and some are just kind of there.

A kid not getting a toy is sad, but it's not the end of the world. However, healthcare is literally life or death. It makes complete sense to single out healthcare.

[oatmeal1]

Healthcare being life or death is why we should do anything but depend on the government to be the sole option for its administration.

[sqeaky]

We have seen more than 100 other countries nationalize healthcare and seen it work well. Arguing against it is silly, bordering on irrational.

Capitalism simply doesn't work in an environment where one side has infinite leverage.

[s1artibartfast]

Even those countries, it is still a for profit verture. Companies are paid for products, Doctors and healthcare professionals are paid to go to work.

These other countries didn't nationalize their industries. They simply use spending controls. The government says we "will pay $X and you can take it or leave it". The US is rather rare in that we say "We will take it no matter the cost".

Companies are more or less greedy in different countries. They are the same companies!

[asveikau]

I agree that price feels shockingly high. However, the government can subsidize treatment. As can private insurance policies, before the sufferer becomes homeless, or if they qualify for a family member's plan.

The population suffering these illnesses are already costing the public a lot of money in various forms, it could be worth the investment.

[rs999gti]

Drugs become generic eventually and costs come down.

Zyprexa, which was mentioned in the article, is almost always prescribed as generic Olanzapine. Cost as of 2024 for generic - 9 USD, brand name 476 USD.

[ninetyninenine]

a necessary evil in a capitalist system. Is capitalism perfect? No. Do we know of a better system yet? Maybe. But as of right now better to have a possible cure for 20k rather then nothing.

[lukan]

"frankly (again if this pans out) our homelessness crisis would look very different if this drug had existed 20 years ago"

Are there numbers, for how many homeless people, are suffering from schizophrenia?

I would assume only a very small number of homeless people has the clinical condition, but those who have it, are just very visible. Most homeless people are hidden usually and avoid attention.

[dgacmu]

It's actually quite high. 10%+ in this meta-analysis, and 21% with some form of psychosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6880407/

If I were to guess, I would say that while many people may experience bouts of homelessness, the ones with schizophrenia are more likely to be persistently homeless.

[throw18376]

this is completely true, but they take up a very disproportionate amount of time and energy from social service providers, people who work in shelters, etc, and make all spaces for homeless people much more chaotic.

the crisis would look very different if it was just a mix of people dealing with drug addiction (but basically lucid and rational) and with poverty.

[lukan]

"drug addiction (but basically lucid and rational) "

Serious drug addicts are seldom lucid and rational.

But I very much do get the point, that solving the schizophrenic problem, would help a lot with everything else. (I am just way more sceptical, that this drug can deliver that)

[11235813213455]

Even those who are not, will probably develop some sort of schizophrenia due to their marginal lifestyle, but I wonder if it's really a "disease", I feel like it's an adaptation to their environment for people who are more sensitive than others. I feel like the pain is more due to the lack of solutions, especially in a city centre, where it's a constant hell for these guys (and for most any other animal actually, except a few who adapted to that: pigeons, rats, some insects but not the most beautiful ones), just my thought

[rs999gti]

> but I wonder if it's really a "disease"

Not a disease but a real illness, with no cure but treatment like cancer.

Even with effective treatment, sometimes the psychosis wins, and the patient can backslide into full blown illness.