Should society spend $750,000 a year to keep a person alive?

[Silverstarqueen]

Ontario is covering this drug, so patient needing it can move there.

You don't get instant coverage just by moving so this is not always an option.
Our neighbours daughter is on a special program that the BC Gov't pays for. It took her a long time to get this authorized.
They would like to move back to Alberta but if they did she would lose it and probably die.

The option is not having it covered at all. So I should think it would be worthwhile to move to receive a drug costing $750,000 per year, if it would save a family member's life.

[oneh2obabe]

Ontario is covering this drug, so patient needing it can move there.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/h ... dmail.com&

While Ontario will be funding the drug it won't be available to everyone who requires/needs/wants it.

From the article

In a statement announcing the decision, Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins said, "We took the politics out of drug funding, and we now rely on experts to determine which drugs are funded."

The statement said he was informed this week that Suzanne McGurn, the executive officer of Ontario's public drug programs, had decided the drug would be funded for aHUS patients who meet certain clinical criteria, meaning payment will be determined on a case-by-case basis after a request from a patient's doctor.

[GordonH]

Something different has to come up with these very costly drugs, our medical system would go bankrupt if they fund each time this happens.
There is person in Vernon with MS who's quality of life is improve with costly drug, unfortunately the extented medical coverage stopped paying for it.

I feel for those who badly need these drugs, pharmaceutical companies need to be held responsible for the huge charges.... it's insane what they are aloud to charge.

[alanjh595]

If pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to charge for the cure, then why would they have the desire to search for the cure? It costs a lot of $$$$ for research and manufacture of these cures. If the possibility of making a profit is taken away, why would they even bother to look for a cure in the first place?
Likewise, if they did accidently find a cure for a disease, but it would cost a lot of money to produce it, why would they tell anyone about what they had found? Considering that, the public would be outraged at the cost and chastise the company for charging too much?
They are screwed if they do, and if they don't, by public opinion.

how much are you willing to pay for a drug that cures childhood Cancer, if your child has Cancer? How much is too much?

[oneh2obabe]

If pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to charge for the cure, then why would they have the desire to search for the cure? It costs a lot of $$$$ for research and manufacture of these cures. If the possibility of making a profit is taken away, why would they even bother to look for a cure in the first place?

Most people assume the drug companies are charging sky-high prices to recover their research, development and manufacturing costs, because the patient population for rare diseases is so small.

But in reality, the extreme prices of these new orphan drugs are largely arbitrary, and have very little to do with the development and manufacturing costs, according to industry analysts and academic researchers who have studied the issue.

In case of Soliris, most of the research and development was done by university researchers working in academic laboratories supported by public funds.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/how-pharm ... -1.3125251

[GordonH]

If pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to charge for the cure, then why would they have the desire to search for the cure? It costs a lot of $$$$ for research and manufacture of these cures. If the possibility of making a profit is taken away, why would they even bother to look for a cure in the first place?
Likewise, if they did accidently find a cure for a disease, but it would cost a lot of money to produce it, why would they tell anyone about what they had found? Considering that, the public would be outraged at the cost and chastise the company for charging too much?
They are screwed if they do, and if they don't, by public opinion.

how much are you willing to pay for a drug that cures childhood Cancer, if your child has Cancer? How much is too much?

I suspect they charge way over to give there shareholders huge returns on their investment, this all on the backs of those who need the drug to help there diagnoses.
Of course only the close Family members really care if these people live or die anyway, right.

[Silverstarqueen]

Now a drug that costs $65000 a year is starting to look like a bargain (compared to some others).

The National MS Society applauds Genentech for their leadership in setting the wholesale acquisition cost (or list price) of Ocrevus at $65,000 per year — nearly 20 percent below the current market average for an MS treatment.Mar 29, 2017

[alanjh595]

How does charging $750,000 for a drug that treats such a rare disease and affects so very few people, provide profits and pay dividends to the shareholders?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to make $2 on each of 1,000,000 that everyone will need at least once /year, than waiting for the 1 in a million to pay $750,000 ?
AND, then to find the 1 in 1,000,000 that can actually afford to pay that amount? Now we are looking at 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000.

[GordonH]

How does charging $750,000 for a drug that treats such a rare disease and affects so very few people, provide profits and pay dividends to the shareholders?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to make $2 on each of 1,000,000 that everyone will need at least once /year, than waiting for the 1 in a million to pay $750,000 ?
AND, then to find the 1 in 1,000,000 that can actually afford to pay that amount? Now we are looking at 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000.

Vast majority of money & research is usually done at the Universities not at pharmaceutical companies.
They come along scoop up what research/after the hard lifting been done, get patent for orphan drug. Then charge whatever the hell they want.

[lesliepaul]

How does charging $750,000 for a drug that treats such a rare disease and affects so very few people, provide profits and pay dividends to the shareholders?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to make $2 on each of 1,000,000 that everyone will need at least once /year, than waiting for the 1 in a million to pay $750,000 ?
AND, then to find the 1 in 1,000,000 that can actually afford to pay that amount? Now we are looking at 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000.

Vast majority of money & research is usually done at the Universities not at pharmaceutical companies.
They come along scoop up what research/after the hard lifting been done, get patent for orphan drug. Then charge whatever the hell they want.

Thank you GordonH............."and that's the truth". Shareholders wealth is the main concern for almost every large company. Drug companies have been proven to be on the high extreme of profit.

[Verum]

...
Thank you GordonH............."and that's the truth". Shareholders wealth is the main concern for almost every large company. Drug companies have been proven to be on the high extreme of profit.

Every publicly traded company is expected to operate to maximise shareholder wealth. That's their job. That's the basic function of a business. They are there to make money and anything else they do is a by-product. Pharma companies are no exception and nor should they be. The problem is that the profit motive doesn't lead to good results in terms of public health. It is not in their interest to cure pretty much anything as the money made from a cure is generally far less than the money made from treating the symptoms. Additionally, it is their responsibility to extract as much income from each and every drug they develop. This means that for drugs where there is no alternative, the cost can be extraordinary. Similarly, for drugs which only have a limited use, few patient on a rare disease, they try to charge large sums to pay for research and clinical trials. It's simple economics.

To get around this problem, to have drugs developed with public health in mind, requires a different model and I wouldn't begin to suggest what that should look like.

[StraitTalk]

This is a very interesting question to raise. I can't help but feel like public systems are routinely taken advantage of due to lack of oversight or simply, competition - that said, there are examples of public healthcare around the world that work much better than ours and I feel like perhaps we should be following their examples. All too often these issues become political and remain unchanged, unimproved and left to become inefficient while we're busy squabbling between two, three and maybe four (if we're lucky) "bottom lines" aka political platforms.

Could be worse though, the states only have two and look at how that's going for them.

[Ka-El]

The question shouldn’t be should society spend $750,000 a year to keep a person alive (yes, these people should have access to this life saving drug). The question should be why the hell does this drug cost $750,000 a year. Are these companies not rich enough yet? How much profit is enough, and when does it just become nothing more than greed?

[Verum]

The question shouldn’t be should society spend $750,000 a year to keep a person alive (yes, these people should have access to this life saving drug). The question should be why the hell does this drug cost $750,000 a year. Are these companies not rich enough yet? How much profit is enough, and when does it just become nothing more than greed?

To a business there is no such thing as being rich enough. Their primary purpose is to make as much wealth for their owners as possible:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-business/chapter/what-is-a-business/

[Thinktank]

To a business there is no such thing as being rich enough. Their primary purpose is to make as much wealth for their owners as possible:

So she was right after all.



Guylaine Lanctot said the drug companies don't want people to be healthy.