Cost of Sovaldi in India, Burma, Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt: $10 a pill There's a great book called Surviving Schizophrenia that points out that for what schizophrenia patients pay for a year's supply of typical meds, they could book a last-minute, first-class flight to Spain, stay at the Savoy for a week, get a private appointment with a doctor, buy a years' supply of drugs and book a last-minute, first-class flight back to New York and come out ahead. You wanna see reform? Pass a law that says the patient responsibility for any drug will never be greater in the US than the patient responsibility in any other country that company markets to. 'cuz you know what? Kaiser Permanente ain't never paying $990 per pill to Gilead to make up the difference and Kaiser's lawyers are better than yours. I say make 'em fight someone other than patients for once.
It's what I find so enraging about these practices: the patient is paying the price, and these companies can just get away with this shit. I understand that developing new medicinal breakthroughs costs a lot of money, but isn't there a better way of doing it than this?I say make 'em fight someone other than patients for once.
Francis Collins, director of the NIH is pretty big on putting dollars into drug development. Surprisingly, pretty much everyone else wasn't so fond of the idea (Partly because it takes away from the (small) pot of money for basic research): ... The next month, The New York Times ran a front-page story declaring that NIH officials “have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines” and that to do so Collins was willing to “cannibalize” other parts of the NIH. The reaction was fierce. Congressional Republicans, drug-industry executives and NIH-funded basic researchers blasted the agency for treading on private-sector prerogatives, for neglecting its basic-research mandate and for presuming that it could succeed where industry had been failing. Now, it's small and in a slightly different direction from for-profit pharmaceuticals: To underscore what sets NCATS apart from industry, Austin has been showcasing the centre's first new programme, which makes available to NIH-funded scientists 58 drugs tested in humans but abandoned by big drug firms for business reasons or because they didn't work against the conditions that the companies had tested them on. The goal is to put those candidates to other uses. The programme has become a useful flagship for NCATS not least because it — unlike others in the opaque field of translational research — is easily explained to the public. ... but afaik, it's too early to call the project a crash-and-burn or shining success.In December 2010, Collins, early in his second year as NIH director, announced his intention to form a translational-medicine centre from existing components of the NIH, and to do so within a year — a veritable burst of speed in the government world.
“are there things pharma hasn't thought of doing? Maybe, but for the most part, no,” ... “That's not the right question. The right question is: what can they do within the confines of … a profit-making organization? There's a lot of things you just can't do even if you want to.”