[FoRK] Accidental theorist lost, wanted back
geege4 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 10:01:50 PDT 2009
(I've heard that green tea bags applied topically to psoriasis helps
alleviate the symptoms).
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>>> I would go for a system where specialty, very expensive drugs have a
>>> reasonable base price and a monthly payment if they are successful
>>> (anti-cancer, etc.). If and when it doesn't work, the drug companies do not
>>> profit (as much).
>> Eh? Have you thought through the economics of this? The profits on
>> pharmaceuticals as a class are far from being so spectacular that the cost
>> of something like this could be buried.
>> Suppose you do have an anti-cancer drug, which like most anti-cancer drugs
>> only has a modest success rate, let's say 20% for the sake of argument. You
>> have just cut the pool of people amortizing the very high development costs
>> by a factor of *five*, correspondingly increasing the drug cost to the
>> survivors by a factor of five. Maybe with your "reasonable" base price it
>> only costs the survivors four times as much as it would have cost if the
>> costs had been evenly distributed over cancer patients.
>> And what about those cases where the anti-cancer drug may or may not work
>> well but the person survives due to an alternative therapy? What
>> constitutes a failure such that the pharmaceutical company doesn't get paid.
>> Most drugs, particularly the specialty expensive ones, rarely have
>> anything even approaching a 100% success rate. All you've done is greatly
>> increase the cost that must be absorbed by the people for whom it works.
>> This just looks like a way to increase the risk for pharma companies even
>> J. Andrew Rogers
>> I realize that it is problematic. Only in certain cases would the
> evidence be clear. Still, the incentivation would be nice. Even if you
> just gave the drug companies 50% of the income tax revenue for 5 years for
> people saved, it might be a net tax and out of pocket savings and a boon for
> drug research funding.
> A different tactic might be to fund drug success in some award-based way
> that doesn't have the inhibitory effect that high pricing does. Maximum
> possible use should result once success is found, not using it sparingly and
> restricting the pool of payers by trying to recover costs + profit. Put
> aside some billions every year toward "buying" rock star drugs into generic
> status or some halfway measure.
> As it is, expensive drugs are dispensed with little or no feedback, after
> trials, of whether they are effective in particular cases. For the small
> number of cases where I know that an over the counter solution works better
> than the current commercial RX, I make it a point to mention them to any MD
> I come in contact with. On the other hand, I've told 2 people just in the
> last 3 weeks to go get a prescription for a certain wonder drug that, from
> my experience, is likely to cure problems they've had for years (exzema /
> psoriasis) or weeks (fungal skin infections). These were people who had
> been prescribed various other things that never worked and had given up.
> All of this anecdotal stuff is no replacement for clinical trials, however
> it would be useful for people to have more actual and relevant evidence that
> things work.
> This stuff is pretty cool: Imiquimod
> Just get rid of your pre-cancer / cancer at home, a la Compound-W.
> This is a very mild version of the first step in Mohs surgery
> (chemosurgery) using an escharotic. (Beware of mustard seed oil in India!)
> Interesting that Mohs surgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_surgeryis a real, legitimate version of Hoxsey Therapy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxsey_Therapy that was thoroughly debunked.
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK