Were the USA - where much of the world’s biopharma research occurs - to emulate such a scheme as proposed in Canada, new drug development would slow considerably.

As it is, US consumers treat most of the rest of the world to a large part of pharmaceutical R and D expenses by paying higher prices for drugs whose prices have been forced down by such socialist interventions.

Pull the plug on that and bang goes much in the way of advanced in pharmaceutical advances..

Balloony my naive friend. Research comes from entrepreneurs that are motivated by the "researcher's interest" and/or "future monetary gain" as opposed to actual need (need is a distant third). Advertising works in any venue including Canada and big Pharma knows that. In other words and just like all products, create the drug and motivate people that they should buy it (most of time deceptively).

I am hardly naive, having been in medical practice both here in the U.S and in the U.K., a medical research and marketing executive in the Pharma industry and now a venture capital investor and entrepreneur in medical bioscience

If prices are artificially depressed by government ( rather than market forces), venture capital availability for medical entrepreneurs/innovators will also be majorly decreased since expected returns and thus future valuations on the investments will be perceived to be substantially diminished ...

Hence less money for research, less taxes paid on less profits, and much less innovation possible for advancement of biopharma therapies

Hello John,

You are right and I apologize for calling you naive. Thank you for providing your history. It appears your preconceptions have biased your thinking (i.e.- venture capital investor and entrepreneur in medical bioscience). First, you need to know that I am a conservative in every sense of the word including but not limited to economics. That said, today's mainline economic philosophy is much different than even 25 years ago. However, the greed that always invades and corrupts capitalism has grown out of control. Please be reminded that persons such as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers (to name a few) relied on investors (investment capital has been around a long time). The difference then and now is that most investors of yesteryear were more prudent and in most cases could weather bad investments (not so today -- bubbles, bubbles). I also want you to know that investment in research devoid of humanitarian consideration will never prosper the investor in the long run (long run equals eternity). The men named above died very wealthy but very alone. They lead personal lives that were for the most part empty and in most cases tragic. Regards, Hern

Mr Carolino — there are many easier ways to get instant capital gains than investing in biomedical research. Think of overnight billionaires in social networks or other high tech inventions

A drug takes about an average of
$1 billion to get through regulators and that leaves only about 5 to 7 years of patent life to recoup these enormous costs and make some profit.

One of the real culprits in elevating drugs costs in the USA — apart from the need to offset overseas price controls — is the inordinate amount of regulatory hurdles.

Far better to allow drugs into the market with just full and compulsory toxicology declarations, rather than requiring efficacy studies — doctors would thus have to make very careful and considered decisions about using the new agents.. But the costs of research, and thus drug prices would be majorly cut..

Investing in life sciences ventures is of itself akin to making an charitable investment — it contributes to medical knowledge; it isn’t frivolous, like much in high tech or consumer products . Even the failures teach science much. If the venture fails the investor gets a write off like does for a charitable donation ; if it works he makes some money. That also creates the reserves for more future investment in medical advances.

Sorry better copy of article as follows:

A 60-year-old Michigan woman who was rejected for a heart transplant due to lack of "a more secure financial plan" had raised $30,610 as of Nov. 28, according her GoFundMe page.
Hedda Martin posted on social media Nov. 26 that Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Spectrum Health's multidisciplinary heart transplant committee could meet soon to discuss next steps, according to a Detroit Free Press report.
secure financial plan" had raised $30,610 as of Nov. 28, according her GoFundMe page.
Hedda Martin posted on social media Nov. 26 that Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Spectrum Health's multidisciplinary heart transplant committee could meet soon to discuss next steps, according to a Detroit Free Press report.
In a Nov. 20 letter that went viral, Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Spectrum Health told Ms. Martin the heart transplant committee determined she was "not a candidate at this time for a heart transplant due to needing a more secure financial plan for immunosuppresive medication coverage."
The system recommended she raise $10,000 to be considered for the transplant.
The GoFundMe page says $10,000 will cover the 20 percent copay needed for two years of immunosuppresive drugs, which help prevent a person's body from rejecting a new heart or other transplanted organ.
Ms. Martin, a Medicare patient who has congestive heart failure induced by 2005 chemotherapy for breast cancer, was scheduled to undergo surgical implantation of a ventricular assist pump as an alternative survival plan, but she said on Facebook that was postponed given the recent fundraising, according to the Detroit Free Press.
Becker's Hospital Review E-weekly Written by Kelly Gooch | November 28, 2018

Mr Carolino.

I am afraid that your rambling and sometimes incomprehensible responses are way off the mark

The costs of drug development I have quoted elsewhere are solely for the average R and D cost of a successful drug, taking into account the costs of the failures as well.

Marketing and sales and other corporate costs are not included.

Next you quote an example of a heart transplant costs as condemnation of drug costs when, in fact, by far the greatest costs there are to do with the total surgery, hospital costs, personnel.

Drug companies often have plans to provide drugs at lower prices for patients who can’t afford them and of course, insurance companies usually negotiate prices down substantially from listed prices.

There is no doubt that high drug prices in the USA are a problem — stemming from multifactorial causes such as price controls overseas, high regulatory costs, the expensive search for treatments for chronic disease without easy solutions etc - but you lay it all on an unsubstantiated claim of universal greed among Pharma companies. I agree that there are a few examples of such ( such as the Shkreli case) but these are few.

Anyhow — as far as I am concerned you do not manifest as a conservative at all in these matters but, like an ultra leftist, emotionally attacking on a reflex basis the false bogey man of ‘Big Pharma Greed’ which industry, all told and on balance, has helped millions in their healthcare needs.

I am now closed on this correspondence ...

Mr. Ables,

It appears you have been exposed for what you really are and you do not like it (typical of a self righteous person and a "Rino"). The truth usually does that to "pompous fools" such as you. Why do I call you a "fool?" Because, the creator of heaven and earth said you are a fool. "The fool says in his heart "There is no God" They are corrupt, they do abdominal deeds; there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1 (ESV) I happened onto this discussion by accident, but I am quite confident you spend a considerable amount of your time in this platform and the other various social media sites. A judgement day is coming Mr. Ables as I insinuated in an earlier response. Consequently and before it is too late, I suggest you spend your time thinking about what shall happen to you when you pass from this life to eternity (your so called investments will do you no good in the life to come). "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil. 2:9-11 (NIV).

I'm old enough to remember when Nixon decided to control gasoline prices and the resulting long lines. Same with drugs?

As health care cost rise, there are more and more of these "schemes" that are going to control costs but in reality just shift payment sources to tax the better off to pay for the less fortunate. What is missing is the quality, freedom and administrative costs of implementing these programs. Victor Fuch's latest JAMA article presents a similar scheme regarding ending employer medical insurance.

I'm told that drug costs for the same drugs are less in Canada than in the US. In fact, pretty much less everywhere else. I'm also told that the reason is (a) Big Pharma is sticking it to Americans; (b) Americans subsidize much of the research so outside the US the drugs are cheaper; (c) other governments negotiate and Big Pharma sticks the costs to American customers and (d)if we had single payer all costs would be lower and the flow of new, important drugs would not slow down. I wonder how much of these internet tales are true.

Hern Carolino's introduction of religious mythology into the pages of ACSH seem very inappropriate to me. Mr. Carolino's comments to Mr. Ables (sic) are, I believe, the first such introductions of superstition into these pages that I have seen. What next? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

It appears that Ron Fredrickson is also a "pompous fool." For three reasons as follow: 1) Only a fool injects himself into another conversation. 2) The creator of heaven and earth said you are a fool Mr. Fredrickson. "The fool says in his heart "There is no God…." Ps. 14:1 3) Calling a person’s faith in Jesus Christ “superstitious” (Jesus Christ the Creator of Heaven and Earth). Your faith in the creation of "earthly life" goes something like this --- “Big Bang” then Wala “nothing from nothing = something” or "inorganic object plus inorganic object" plus billions of years = “Organic Object” (talk about superstitious nonsense). I would laugh at your comments, if not for the fact that your situation is so very sad. Your hated towards your Creator might separate you from His love forever in Hell. I pray that you will humble yourself before your Maker before it is too late. Tell Him you no longer want to be the "rebellious know it all smart alec" and submit to His truths. By the way Mr. Fredrickson, dozens of scientific facts were recorded in the Holy Bible thousands of years before human scientists provided the empirical evidence behind said facts.