Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes9324
"Not saying it's a conspiracy, but the economics of private research don't really incentive the optimal allocation of resources from a public health perspective."
All pretty much true - but exactly how you'd magically incentivize the public researchers to do something they have essentially never done is problematic. The number of actual drugs patented by Universities/Government outfits like the NIH or CDC is pretty close to zero, and has always been.
From what I can tell, the discovery-drug time frame is measured in decades - and the VAST majority of discoveries end up never producing drugs that can be used in patients.
Cures are few and far between, anyway (although god knows we could use some in the infectious disease area) - most of the big problems ( and big $$, for anyone who can figure it out ) lies in meds for stuff like Alzheimers - although a lot of me-too drugs have hit the market over the last 20 years, it seems that stategy is pretty played out - insurers aren't willing to pony up big $$ for meds that don't show actual benefit over previous drugs for the same condition (nor should they be, IMHO)
Note that I'm NOT in any way saying the the present state of affairs is optimal - and the Blog I referenced above is a great resource to begin to understand the issue - understanding that it is written by someone vested in the current system.
MM MD
This is all reasonable and my position is not firm--somewhat playing devil's advocate. I think private companies do plenty of good work that's likely helpful but may be, on balance, not much of a bargain.
And, as you suggest, many serious conditions are either genetic or not related to a specific vector, like Alzheimer's. In fact, I think the subject is so inherently complex that I only know a few things: 1) there are massive inefficiencies in the current system in the US, 2) the incentive structures are somewhat misaligned, 3) we do subsidize other countries' health systems with both our public and private R&D (which is fine, but may presage some adjustments if costs are brought down), 4) any advocate that fully favors either public or private research is probably uninformed about specifics and just pushing a broader ideological agenda. I'm tempted to review that blog, but it's not a core area of concern for me.