This is work that should be done for public benefit by public benefit organizations.
In other words, universities should be where this kind of treatment is developed and tested, AND the regulations that make normal drugs so expensive should apply differently (and relate heavily to a LOT MORE public disclosure and real peer review).
Maybe a socialized or non-profit R&D program would do better than big biotech companies, but before we legislate this idea, how about we test it? My concern is that a non-profit/gov't drug development program will work as well as the ACA's $2B website.
I get hives whenever someone suggests pharma companies are "too" profitable. My daughter is alive today because these "greedy" pharma companies have developed chemotherapies that beat leukemia 90+% of the time. A 20% margin for these companies that regularly produce miracle drugs seems totally fair. Pharma is the closest thing we have to magic in the modern world.
I'm open to the idea there are better possible systems, but the burden of proof is on your side, not the side that regularly cranks out life-saving medicines like the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Without the US healthcare system, my treatment simply would not exist. My treatment exists in no other country in the world.
Eventually, those that don't have insurance as good as mine will benefit from these drugs once the patent expires. It sucks that many people won't benefit until that happens, but under the alternative system SJWs are so keen to promote my treatment would never have been developed and I couldn't get this treatment at any price and no one in the future would get it either because their wouldn't be a treatment for a patent to expire on.
At the end of the day, the US is practicing "socialist" healthcare. It's socialist in the sense that it pays for a lot of the R&D that the rest of the world benefits from. 40% of the entire output of medical research globally comes from the US alone.
We all believe it's important to save lives.
If it costs $300k to save one life, but in other disciplines or other areas of medicine you can save a life for $5k, then you have a problem that is not solved by simply ignoring money.
Money is just a proxy for goods and services; in this case a proxy for having a bunch of highly skilled scientists and doctors work for years to treat a disease only a small group of people have. Having a public benefit corporation rather than a private company doesn't fundamentally change that dynamic.
As to regulations: at bottom, all they really require you to prove is safety and efficacy. If there was a cheap way to prove safety and efficacy, drug companies would just do that on the front end, and send only working drugs through the clinical process. But most drugs don't actually work; most actually fail clinical testing, many after they've made it pretty far along. If you get rid of that testing, and the safety and efficacy data that comes from it, what exactly do you disclose to the public?
Here's hoping someone else can investigate and share the exact number. I'm at a stoplight.
