Comment Re:This is a horrible idea! (Score 1) 154
the problem isn't about who is making the drugs, but who is profiting from them. Sure, incentivizing research is tough and everyone wants a return on their investment but the consortium's proposal lets pharma continue to dominate the market in developed countries, it just tries to find a way to lower prices in poorer ones. Since poorer ones can't afford the meds anyway, i doubt that will cause a blip to the bottom line of Phizer or Roche. As long as medicare part D still pumps loads of cash to expensive prescription drugs, pharma has plenty of incentive to produce new meds.
Seriously, why does everyone freak out with the idea that pharma might make a tiny bit less money than currently? its not like the consortium is asking pharma to be nationalized!
btw, drug donations from pharma to developing countries don't work - just ask doctors without borders (http://www.accessmed-msf.org/upload/ReportsandPub lications/2092002185426/4-3.pdf) - they're expensive and only sustainable at the whim of pharma and their investment-return-demanding shareholders. Time and time again, experience shows that generic drugs are the best and cheapest way to get people in developing countries live saving meds - and Senior Clinton and his Foundation seem to agree considering the deals they've been making with Indian generic companies.
oh, and some of the 'non traditional partners' are non-profits like OneWorld Health, that, since they aren't looking to satisfy shareholders investment appetites, actually don't have an incentive to jack up the prices of meds to boost their advertising budget. Just cause the private sector *can* do something, doesn't mean it always does it better.
you're right on one thing, drugs won't solve the problems in developing countries. but in places like botswana where around 30% of the population has HIV, maintaining structures that keep med prices high is essentially consigning a third of Botswanans to death in short order. Then the rest of the world will have more to worry about than the relatively simple question of how to promote access to cheaper meds in developing countries.
Seriously, why does everyone freak out with the idea that pharma might make a tiny bit less money than currently? its not like the consortium is asking pharma to be nationalized!
btw, drug donations from pharma to developing countries don't work - just ask doctors without borders (http://www.accessmed-msf.org/upload/ReportsandPu
oh, and some of the 'non traditional partners' are non-profits like OneWorld Health, that, since they aren't looking to satisfy shareholders investment appetites, actually don't have an incentive to jack up the prices of meds to boost their advertising budget. Just cause the private sector *can* do something, doesn't mean it always does it better.
you're right on one thing, drugs won't solve the problems in developing countries. but in places like botswana where around 30% of the population has HIV, maintaining structures that keep med prices high is essentially consigning a third of Botswanans to death in short order. Then the rest of the world will have more to worry about than the relatively simple question of how to promote access to cheaper meds in developing countries.
