Ultimately returns in every industry tend towards zero. If we made it cheaper to develop new drugs it would extend the lifespan of the industry somewhat but not indefinitely. At some point diminishing returns take over and investment must go down.
The current regime in the USA didn't happen for nothing. It's well-known now that pharma companies had long been exploiting the file drawer effect and p-hacking to inflate the apparent safety and efficacy of their drugs in their FDA filings. The decision a couple decades ago to cut that off did dramatically reduce the rate at which drugs win approval, and that's a very good thing.
This provides what to me is compelling evidence that the efficacy requirement by the FDA is wasteful.
I often see vague complaints about the regulations, but no one seems to have specific suggestions about how to lower drug development costs while still protecting patients.
Specific suggestion: get rid of efficacy requirement, keep safety requirement. Let doctors decide what works, as they currently do for off-label uses just fine.
Tons of drugs have been approved, only to be later pulled off the shelves. So despite the massive cost, delays, etc. the process has failed at least 35 (!) times:
https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/fda-approved-prescripti...
This does not explain the increase in cost of insulin, which was invented in 1923.
It's newer formulations that are expensive, and those are still protected by patents.
Perhaps the market is not designed for this sort of endeavor (drug research). Let government stand in where the market has failed.
Meanwhile, what has the government done? The trip from DC to New York on Amtrak is slower today than it was in 1960. In 1980, DC’s Metro had self driving trains. They had to shut that down in 2009 due to lack of maintenance and the unions. Spending on public education, adjusted for inflation, per student since 1960. But achievement hasn’t budged one inch. If the drug industry has failed, what words are in the English language for what the government has done?
Meanwhile, what has the government done?
Exactly that: "NIH funded the majority of support for HIV/AIDS, infectious disease and oncology research." https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-266...
The market works great until it doesn't. The interstate system, and the military are 2 prime examples where the market is never going to provide a solution. Affordable medical care for everyone is another.
serious question - does a profitable private passenger railroad company that actually owns/maintains tracks, stations, etc exist without subsidies anywhere at all in the world? And Amtrak itself is nominally public-private and was formed in reaction to purely private railroads collapsing..
> In 1980, DC’s Metro had self driving trains. They had to shut that down in 2009 due to lack of maintenance and the unions.
even if the trains were self driving, for the 10y or so I lived there before this, there was still a conductor, so not sure if this is really a good argument..
That's not to say there's on place for the private sector there, but there is massive friction between a profit motive in drug research and you know, building a more healthy society. See the "new Adderalls" like Vyvanse that offer no benefits over Adderall, but Adderall's patent is up so it can be made by generics and isn't as profitable anymore.
