[msandford]

That's one of the things that sucks about IP law. It'll never be standardized internationally so those places where it's strict, prices are high. In nations where it's looser, prices are low. We pay the government to enforce laws that keep our prices up. It's kind of a bummer.

[soneil]

It's nothing to do with IP; Simply what the market is willing to pay. We're not buying knockoffs, or violating anyone's IP (I'm european). In fact, the article claims the US buys more generics than we do.

We just have a completely different market, and the prices reflect that. With state-sponsored healthcare, you have one buyer who represents a vast proportion of a nation's market. The economics become reaching most the market on a narrow margin, vs reaching a tiny market on a more favourable margin.

Apparently the narrow margin scales to beat the private margin, based on those sales being made.

[msandford]

It does have to do with IP. If there was a worldwide IP regime in place, EVERYONE would have to pay what the drug companies demanded, or let their citizens die without the drugs (in countries with single-payer).

Since the drug companies know that Canada or countries in Europe could -- if they so chose -- make new laws that strike down the validity of their patents. But that would take time to do and require specialized laws that only dissolved drug patents or whatever. So they sell the drugs cheaply.

There's no negotiating like that here in the US because this is where the major pharma companies are headquartered and where they spend a lot of money lobbying for excellent protections. As a result their patents are safe here.

But their patents are not safe overseas which is why those countries tend to get a better deal on their drugs on the whole. It's different because those involved in the buying can alter the regulatory environment. Those involved in the buying here can't make such a credible threat and as a result, higher prices.

[loceng]

Cheap everything, including drugs, is the value that free markets are supposed to create, to lead to the cheapest - and patents aren't supportive of this. Regarding people who say this research and discoveries wouldn't have happened without ability to patent - there are plenty of researchers, many, if not the majority, who do their work because they want to help people and the field interests them - so if they have their living costs taken care of, and access to the tools they need, they'll be happy and the research would be discovered. The U.S. pushed on the capitalist system to the extremes, and it leads to the acceleration of innovation - though we have enough basic science and technology figured out now, where we should be focusing on taking care of people properly, which we're currently doing a poor job of - doing a good job is where free market value is supposed to lead. Free market capitalism, without protectionism (no longer free market - a popular term hijacked by those in control), leads to the cost of production getting as close to the next unit of production being $0. If something is $0 then everyone can benefit from it. This is why the internet is so valuable, invaluable, and hugely important in the world's progression. If you have an internet connection, then the cost of acquiring the benefit from software created or receiving information is basically $0. Right now though the positive benefits of unchecked capitalism don't outweigh the negative effects that it also generates, fosters. Without patents and the such then the world would benefit in the same way - everyone can very cheaply benefit from software. The problem is many countries have aligned themselves with being in a controlling state, to use leverage for short-term gain - though it is only temporary, and only lasts so long as you maintain control - and control is costly. If the whole world was fitting the bill for new research, the cost to each of us would be practically $0; I won't go deep into the idea that money isn't real either, and that if we were all in service to everyone else, then everyone would be very well taken care of - we're not born into this construct so it's very hard for most people to visualize this experience of living this way, or to feel safe and secure.

[dnautics]

loceng - you may be interest in what I'm doing, check my profile.

[bluedino]

There's an argument to be made that there will be more innovation and creation of these drugs if there are fortunes to be made.

[msandford]

In theory I agree with you. I think in practice that's not so much the case.

Drug companies fund the vast majority of drug research and they're much happier with already proven drugs (which are already paid for and have zero risk) than new drugs which aren't approved by regulators nor proven profitable yet.

If it were possible to fund the R&D for new drugs the same way tech/VC is done these days I would 100% agree with you. But the cost is so high and the timeline so long that no sane VC would write those checks and as a result it's big institutions only.

So what ends up happening is that we overpay for drugs so that the drug companies have enough money to spend 2x what they do on R&D on advertising, telling us which overpriced drugs we need.

http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?...