| Rath said: Me and a mate were discussing before what a publicly run pharmaceutical would be like. Problem with the pharmaceutical industry is that when they come up with a nifty new product (which by law only they can make) people need it - really really need it. Therefore they can charge whatever the hell they like for it. A public non-profit pharmaceutical company would be able to focus on diseases which are more harmful but less profitable and turn out drugs at cheaper prices. It seems like it could really lower the huge healthcare costs in America. |
You do realize that the cost for a firm to develop a new drug and bring it to market is between $500 Million and $2 Billion, companies have to build larger and larger profits to cover for the eventual class action lawsuits which can cost up to $2 Billion, and drugs are targeting rarer and rarer conditions (meaning there are fewer drugs being sold to make up these costs). Under these conditions what makes you think that a drug company has the choice to charge a lower price for drugs to market?
Now, I know some people think that the government should take over but (in general) the government has an awful track record when it comes to research and development. The government has difficulty focusing and prioritizing when it comes to research and development because there really is no incentive for them to develop the product which meets the greatest need at a given time; whereas a private company can sell the most of a product at the highest price if it fills the greatest need at a given time.
Drug costs could be greatly reduced if the upfront costs of R&D were more distributed throughout the western world and Americans didn't pay the bulk of the costs though; but that is the side effect of so many countries having government run medicine which tends to only pay for established treatments to keep costs low.
