that the market dictates what vaccines come into being.
R&D is incredibly expensive in healthcare. And subsidizing vaccines puts a lot of money down the rabbit hole that we can't recoup. Especially for a bunch of the more exotic illnesses.
that the market dictates what vaccines come into being.
R&D is incredibly expensive in healthcare. And subsidizing vaccines puts a lot of money down the rabbit hole that we can't recoup. Especially for a bunch of the more exotic illnesses.
I believe it is because health care is scrutinized so much differently than any other product or service.
Although you are right, all people have to see is one heart wrenching scenario and they'll advocate spending tens of millions of dollars on R&D to save a handful of lives.
And, there, IMHO is the crux of the issue. Purchasing healthcare is just simply not the same as purchasing any other product or service and it never will be.
Bad? Of course its bad. Lives lost when it was possible to save them, that's bad. Now, the question is what are the alternatives, and the answer is none. Because of course you are right about the necessity of market decisions even in the case of life and death. As I said, I don't have an answer, but yes it is bad ...necessarily bad.
I suspect the inference is that if some force other than the market were in play, there would have been a massive campaign against Ebola and we wouldn't be in the present situation.
Prior to this year, there had been about 2,500 cases of Ebola globally since 1976 - I won't swear to the math, so happy to be corrected.
Even including this year, from a cost perspective, spending the money it would have taken to inoculate a significant percentage of the populations in the relevant countries, and the associated benefit, any reasonable health related use of those funds would have been a far superior alternative.
A focus on first world illnesses, but Ebola isn't the poster child for that - not even close. With on average less than 30 cases a year, the outbreaks could be in Canada and I am not sure the resources would be all that much different.
For the life of me, though, I can't understand why other illnesses around the world for which we have viable vaccines and treatments, that have been eradicated in the first world, aren't seen as the pressing problem.
For fuck's sake, mosquito nets would be a blessing for malarial-infested areas in large quantities.
That's where this "promising" Ebola money should go, if you want some significant non-government intervention. Eliminate the threats that disrupt people for life.
It's not a "failure" on the part of drug companies as the article puts it. It's just the way it is.
Bill, although they do use the word "failure" in one place ..."reflects a broader failure to produce medicines and vaccines for diseases that afflict poor countries", it does go on to explain the economic constraints in bringing a drug to market. I don't think the thrust of the article is an accusation of the drug companies, but rather an acknowledgment of the unfortunate realities involved.
Bad? Of course its bad. Lives lost when it was possible to save them, that's bad. Now, the question is what are the alternatives, and the answer is none. Because of course you are right about the necessity of market decisions even in the case of life and death. As I said, I don't have an answer, but yes it is bad ...necessarily bad.
Then everything is bad. A lack of focus on significant end-of-life treatments is bad. A lack of focus on malarial nets is bad. So on and so forth.
At some point, a simple cost-benefit analysis would highlight that this situation isn't bad, but simply unfortunate.
We live in a world of scarcity. I reserve bad for the crippling effects of first-world illnesses that don't kill, but maim, and for which we have developed treatments for decades.
I reserve bad for the illnesses that have significant impacts on social structures, from eliminating entire families, to something that can be transmitted before a person even makes a conscious choice (HIV). Those are bad.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will see an 8.2 percent budget increase for fiscal 2014, thanks to a $1.1 trillion spending bill announced by Congress Jan. 13.
This influx of cash will raise the CDC budget to $6.9 BILLION, which is $567 million more than it received in 2013. This is more than the agency anticipated, because the president's fiscal year 2014 budget request for it was just $6.6 billion -- a decrease of $270 million from fiscal 2012."
Seems like they could throw a few million towards an ebola vaccine instead of studying why lesbians are fat or the sex lives of fruit flies.
promising, to develop interest in the product for investment capital?
Throwing a few million would have done nothing, as it even mentions in the article the significant costs (closing in on a Billion) incurred. And, of course, it's the fact that there is a high probability it does nothing.
The costs are the actual expenses, divided by the probability of the drug succeeding. So, even with 10% chances of succeeding, costs of $1 Billion are transformed to $10 Billion quite quickly...
I don't actually know what cdc does with its money
Bad? Of course its bad. Lives lost when it was possible to save them, that's bad. Now, the question is what are the alternatives, and the answer is none. Because of course you are right about the necessity of market decisions even in the case of life and death. As I said, I don't have an answer, but yes it is bad ...necessarily bad.
Then everything is bad. A lack of focus on significant end-of-life treatments is bad. A lack of focus on malarial nets is bad. So on and so forth.
At some point, a simple cost-benefit analysis would highlight that this situation isn't bad, but simply unfortunate.
We live in a world of scarcity. I reserve bad for the crippling effects of first-world illnesses that don't kill, but maim, and for which we have developed treatments for decades.
I reserve bad for the illnesses that have significant impacts on social structures, from eliminating entire families, to something that can be transmitted before a person even makes a conscious choice (HIV). Those are bad.
R&D is incredibly expensive in healthcare. And subsidizing vaccines puts a lot of money down the rabbit hole that we can't recoup. Especially for a bunch of the more exotic illnesses.
R&D is incredibly expensive in healthcare. And subsidizing vaccines puts a lot of money down the rabbit hole that we can't recoup. Especially for a bunch of the more exotic illnesses.
I believe it is because health care is scrutinized so much differently than any other product or service.
Although you are right, all people have to see is one heart wrenching scenario and they'll advocate spending tens of millions of dollars on R&D to save a handful of lives.
And, there, IMHO is the crux of the issue. Purchasing healthcare is just simply not the same as purchasing any other product or service and it never will be.
Special snowflake or dust in the wind?
Prior to this year, there had been about 2,500 cases of Ebola globally since 1976 - I won't swear to the math, so happy to be corrected.
Even including this year, from a cost perspective, spending the money it would have taken to inoculate a significant percentage of the populations in the relevant countries, and the associated benefit, any reasonable health related use of those funds would have been a far superior alternative.
For the life of me, though, I can't understand why other illnesses around the world for which we have viable vaccines and treatments, that have been eradicated in the first world, aren't seen as the pressing problem.
For fuck's sake, mosquito nets would be a blessing for malarial-infested areas in large quantities.
That's where this "promising" Ebola money should go, if you want some significant non-government intervention. Eliminate the threats that disrupt people for life.
Bill, although they do use the word "failure" in one place ..."reflects a broader failure to produce medicines and vaccines for diseases that afflict poor countries", it does go on to explain the economic constraints in bringing a drug to market. I don't think the thrust of the article is an accusation of the drug companies, but rather an acknowledgment of the unfortunate realities involved.
Then everything is bad. A lack of focus on significant end-of-life treatments is bad. A lack of focus on malarial nets is bad. So on and so forth.
At some point, a simple cost-benefit analysis would highlight that this situation isn't bad, but simply unfortunate.
We live in a world of scarcity. I reserve bad for the crippling effects of first-world illnesses that don't kill, but maim, and for which we have developed treatments for decades.
I reserve bad for the illnesses that have significant impacts on social structures, from eliminating entire families, to something that can be transmitted before a person even makes a conscious choice (HIV). Those are bad.
This influx of cash will raise the CDC budget to $6.9 BILLION, which is $567 million more than it received in 2013. This is more than the agency anticipated, because the president's fiscal year 2014 budget request for it was just $6.6 billion -- a decrease of $270 million from fiscal 2012."
Seems like they could throw a few million towards an ebola vaccine instead of studying why lesbians are fat or the sex lives of fruit flies.
Throwing a few million would have done nothing, as it even mentions in the article the significant costs (closing in on a Billion) incurred. And, of course, it's the fact that there is a high probability it does nothing.
The costs are the actual expenses, divided by the probability of the drug succeeding. So, even with 10% chances of succeeding, costs of $1 Billion are transformed to $10 Billion quite quickly...
Quote:
Bad? Of course its bad. Lives lost when it was possible to save them, that's bad. Now, the question is what are the alternatives, and the answer is none. Because of course you are right about the necessity of market decisions even in the case of life and death. As I said, I don't have an answer, but yes it is bad ...necessarily bad.
Then everything is bad. A lack of focus on significant end-of-life treatments is bad. A lack of focus on malarial nets is bad. So on and so forth.
At some point, a simple cost-benefit analysis would highlight that this situation isn't bad, but simply unfortunate.
We live in a world of scarcity. I reserve bad for the crippling effects of first-world illnesses that don't kill, but maim, and for which we have developed treatments for decades.
I reserve bad for the illnesses that have significant impacts on social structures, from eliminating entire families, to something that can be transmitted before a person even makes a conscious choice (HIV). Those are bad.
HA! Ok, "unfortunate". Or maybe "not good"?