|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 03:17 PM EST|
Honestly, I suspect that, even for drugs, patents are not
really the right approach.
Basically, we've set up the following 'rules':
(a) We will pay unlimited amounts for marginal improvements
in patient outcomes. (Congrats...you lived an extra month
with metastatic cancer and severe nausea.)
(b) And, you must test for a gigantic array of possible
side-effects. (Oh no...if you mix these drugs...and have a
heart condition...it causes liver failure. NEGLIGENCE!!!
Give me your company now.)
Given (a) and (b), there is a lot of extremely costly drug
development that requires monopoly pricing for support.
It might be better to change the rules to:
(a) We will pay about 50k per quality-adjusted year of life
(b) We will exempt new drugs from liability for most side
We'd probably get somewhat fewer drugs, much cheaper, and a
few extra thalidomide style problems. But, OTOH, we'd
probably save hundreds of billions.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- Thalidomide - Authored by: Wol on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM EST
- Thalidomide - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 07:21 PM EST