Market Failure: Rare diseases...

[armand61685]

For example, there are certain illnesses that not too many people have yet they are dibilitating or life-threatening, but because the market for the treatment of this illness is relatively small, the R&D costs incurred by a pharm/research companies would far outweigh the income generated by such. Therefore, no cure or treatment is made and the person would have to go elsewhere for help.

I believe a socialized section of medicine focused on these problems would be reasonable; at least it's a better than the situation I explained. Either that or private foundations would work, but for some reason I don't see that happening with our economic situation and lack of wealth people have.

What do you guys think?

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Either that or private foundations would work, but for some reason I don't see that happening with our economic situation and lack of wealth people have.

This comes with the assumption that the federal government does and/or should have more money on hand to deal with just this one issue than the wealthiest private researcher out there, which just leaves us right back at square one.

Think of it like the issue of taxes vs. the struggling lower/middle classes. Ordinary families suffer because the government has ensured that they're not keeping a whole lot of the money they earned. The same would go for a scientific research collective. That money has to come from somewhere, so the bulk of it is either in the hands of the government, or circulating among the researchers.

 

[Kludge]

For example, there are certain illnesses that not too many people have yet they are dibilitating or life-threatening, but because the market for the treatment of this illness is relatively small, the R&D costs incurred by a pharm/research companies would far outweigh the income generated by such. Therefore, no cure or treatment is made and the person would have to go elsewhere for help.

I believe a socialized section of medicine focused on these problems would be reasonable; at least it's a better than the situation I explained. Either that or private foundations would work, but for some reason I don't see that happening with our economic situation and lack of wealth people have.

What do you guys think?

Errrm.... So what of the major illnesses that have no cure? We're supposed to focus funding on unprofitable and less helpful illnesses.

Free markets divert resources where they are most needed. Focusing on something that has little demand nearly defines inefficiency.

 

[armand61685]

Errrm.... So what of the major illnesses that have no cure? We're supposed to focus funding on unprofitable and less helpful illnesses.

Free markets divert resources where they are most needed. Focusing on something that has little demand nearly defines inefficiency.

No I'm not talking about illnesses that definitely have no cure. I'm talking about illnesses that not many people have. It's a quantity issue. Because of such a small market, companies are not enticed to research a cure for a disease that affects only a small portion of the country, even if it's life threatening.

If medicine was socialized, funds would be allocated to the unprofitable venture..

I think that's better than not researching it all. But of course, federal spending is never good. State-level is better.

 

[armand61685]

This comes with the assumption that the federal government does and/or should have more money on hand to deal with just this one issue than the wealthiest private researcher out there, which just leaves us right back at square one.

Think of it like the issue of taxes vs. the struggling lower/middle classes. Ordinary families suffer because the government has ensured that they're not keeping a whole lot of the money they earned. The same would go for a scientific research collective. That money has to come from somewhere, so the bulk of it is either in the hands of the government, or circulating among the researchers.

Do you know of any private researchers that have found cures/treatments for diseases that would be unprofitable in an enterprise and have donated these cures or done something with it? I'm just curious.

 

[Conza88]

Don't forget, whats wrong is monopolistic capitalism - NOT competition based capitalism.

 

[angelatc]

Actually, if I may tread the slippery slope for a minute, this could segue into an argument for socialized medicine. If Bill Gates gets a rare disease, then R&D money would almost certainly be no object.

On the other hand, a significant number of medicines are eventually used to treat conditions other than those they were originally intended.

 

[AutoDas]

Let all the other socialized countries come up with cures. What is that? They don't have any because there is no profit to divert into future research and development and they rely on American pharmaceuticals for their socialized medicine?

I do not see the need to pay millions of dollars in taxes for paying someone else's crappy life.

 

[pinkmandy]

Govt interests in "cures" are dictated by pharm interests in providing those cures. In a free market, researchers are more likely to find ways to prevent and/or treat lesser known diseases with alternatives that don't come with an rx. The govt and pharm interests right now put a stranglehold on treating anything w/something besides an expensive pill which often comes w/other side effects which...guess what...need more treatment with more pills.

 

[theoakman]

there's no market failure. They've cured hundreds of disorders. Problem is, the amount of people who have these disorders could never get the treatment. Why? The FDA. It costs you billions of dollars to get a drug approved for treatment by the FDA. No company could afford to do that to treat 20,000 people. It's government intervention.

 

[yongrel]

This is why charity organizations and universities exist.

Scleroderma is an extremely rare disease, but between foundations and universities treatments are being invented.

 

[amy31416]

This is why charity organizations and universities exist.

Scleroderma is an extremely rare disease, but between foundations and universities treatments are being invented.

My father died due to complications of scleroderma. You quickly find out that there is a lot of work being done in that field.

There are three university hospitals that specialize in it: Johns Hopkins, University of Pittsburgh and a place in Seattle, Washington. Once you get to the hospital, you find that there are private organizations who help out the families by providing low-cost places for them to stay because often these are extended hospital stays.

My father was given an experimental drug that would have cost upward of 30k/month--this was covered by the university. In return, we didn't sue them when the lawsuits over this drug started cropping up like many did.

When he died, donations were directed toward the various charities that had helped out.

Not one bit of government money went into it.

 

[theoakman]

Charity will always be far more effective at supplying healthcare than the government. Unfortunately, we've conditioned the average American to think otherwise.

 

[mattc2345]

In my view the original poster has basically said "why don't we have a system like we already have".

University hospitals which are primarily state and federally funded are working on smaller problems while big pharma goes where there is money to be made. Universities around the US/World are competition because it doesn't make them a lot of cash directly but does bring them more name recognition and with it more students and with the students more funds.

Abolishment of the FDA and less public funding of education would be helpful in my opinion.