just watched a commercial begging victims to step forward.. the claim was the government awarded $2.2billion in damages ... Originally Posted by CJ7What drug?
The government awarded damages? Or a court?
- Guest032516
- 11-26-2013, 10:53 PM
The government awarded damages? Or a court?
- CJ7
- 11-26-2013, 10:57 PM
- Guest032516
- 11-26-2013, 11:13 PM
that's what it said ... some drug for women that caused birth defects ... supposedly the woman and the kid can reap the reward, if you want to call it that Originally Posted by CJ7Yeah, teratogens are always big hits with tort lawyers.
But I don't know how the government would be awarding money. It should be a court that makes the pharma company put money into a trust that victims then draw from.
- CJ7
- 11-26-2013, 11:18 PM
Yeah, teratogens are always big hits with tort lawyers.
But I don't know how the goverment would be awarding money. It should be a court that makes the pharma company put money into a trust that victims then draw from. Originally Posted by ExNYer
prolly the government set the total for courts to award ..
IB should get in line.
- I B Hankering
- 11-26-2013, 11:31 PM
- BJerk
- 11-27-2013, 08:11 AM
They are businesses. And the purpose of any business is TO MAKE MONEY.Are you a flack for a Pharma industry association? You seem to believe the premise that the government is laying the groundwork to pass some bill for an industry giveaway to beg them to make antibiotics. I just think they should pay their own way, but I bet that your way will prevail. I still assert it is just another way to get on the government gravy train, but unneeded for such wealthy companies.
So, pharma companies DO fund their own research - in drugs that are most likely to return the greatest profit.
That's why you get a lot of drugs for treating heart disease, obesity, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, cancer, etc. Watch some TV commercials some time.
Apparently, big profits don't include antibiotics. At least not yet, while cheaper antibiotics still work. When people start getting sick and dying in greater numbers, I expect THEN you will see pharma invest its own money.
So, if Congress wants pharma to invest money NOW in antibiotics R&D instead of 10-15 years from now, then Congress will have to provide the incentives to make pharma switch away from more profitable endeavors.
That isn't welfare. That is paying companies to work on drugs the government prefers rather than the drugs pharma would normally prefer.
This has been done before - like the Orphan Drug Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983
Pharma normally does not invest in treating diseases that affect only a small number of people (i.e., orphan drugs). There is no profit in it. Money is always limited so pharma invests R&D money in drug treatments that millions of people will want - like diabetes meds and cancer meds. That is how they make a profit.
The victims of a disease that only affects 500 people a year could never afford the costs of the R&D (multiple millions or more) required to develop an orphan drug treatment.
So Congress tilted the field in favor of promoting research into orphan drugs back in the 1980s. They use a number of schemes including tax incentives.
Again, that is not welfare. Without the incentives, pharma would do something else with its money. So you would end up with all the drug companies chasing treatments for the same small group of 20 or 30 diseases that affect millions of people.
And the many, many orphan diseases would get nothing. Originally Posted by ExNYer
- Guest032516
- 11-27-2013, 04:25 PM
Are you a flack for a Pharma industry association? Originally Posted by Bert JonesNo. In fact, I hate a lot of their practices.
You seem to believe the premise that the government is laying the groundwork to pass some bill for an industry giveaway to beg them to make antibiotics. Originally Posted by Bert JonesThis isn't a matter of believing in a premise. Re-read the Orphan drug link.
Pharma will NOT invest in treatments that won't cover the cost of R&D plus production costs. PERIOD. That's a fact, not a premise that needs to be believed in. If a disease has only 100 victims per year, no one will invest 100 million to develop a cure or treatment. Those 100 victims will not be able to cover the cost and the pharma company is guaranteed to lose money.
So, you only have TWO choices:
1) the pharma companies do NOTHING about the rare orphan disease and invest their money in more common diseases that will return a profit; OR
2) Government induces pharma to search for a cure for the rare disease by agreeing protect the pharma company by paying the costs of its R&D. Their is no begging involved.
That's it. There are no other options. But if you think there is, then please explain how you can get a pharma company to spend money on a sure-fire loser without the government guaranteeing them a profit.
Again, that is NOT welfare. The government wants the pharma company to perform some service it will not otherwise do voluntarily. So, the government has to PAY for that service.
Antibiotics present a similar dilemma to orphan drugs. Although far larger numbers of people will need antibiotics, there are currently cheap antibiotics that still work. So the profit margins for new anitbiotics may be razor thin or non-existent. So pharma won't pursue it unless government underwrites losses.
I just think they should pay their own way, but I bet that your way will prevail. Originally Posted by Bert JonesWhat do you mean by "pay their own way"? They ARE paying their own way when they make a profit by spending their R&D money on diseases that affect a lot of people. That's how they stay in business.
You want them to voluntarily lose money by spending R&D on rare disease. How does that qualify as "paying their own way"?
I still assert it is just another way to get on the government gravy train, but unneeded for such wealthy companies. Originally Posted by Bert JonesIt's not a gravy train. It is a money losing venture. So government underwriting of losses IS needed to get the pharma companies to do it.