SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Doctors are concerned that stocks of anti-venom are running low around the world.
Dr. Richard Clark from UC San Diego Health is an expert in treating snake bite victims. He said, "I think the big deal about antivenoms and shortages in the world right now is that drug companies that make any kind of pharmaceutical product, only make it if it's profitable. And the problem with antivenoms is they tend to be fairly expensive to produce."
It's expensive to produce and there is not enough demand -- so little in fact, that the pharmaceutical company that produced antivenom products stopped making them in 2003. The Food and Drug Administration stepped in and extended the expiration dates of the last remaining supplies to last until June 2016. Clark says it will likely last even longer.
"So, there's still expired antivenom around that we know still works. One day that will be gone unless a company starts to make the coral snake antivenom again," said Clark.
In a case of a lifesaving drug, is it unreasonable to expect a pharmaceutical company to continue making it even though they would make higher profits elsewhere? Is this a good place for governmental incentives?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:57PM
I think the reason drug companies expect huge profits is that they face a huge regulatory burden bringing drugs to market.
I would prefer it if the government funded drug research though universities, then allowed the pharmaceutical companies to compete on manufacturing generic drugs.
If they no longer rely on drug profits to fund risky research, there should be no justification for very high mark-ups on drugs.
If the research is publicly funded, drug patents should not be a barrier to treating patents in the third world.
Crazy left-wing ranting, I know.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:04PM
Everybody should travel wherever they want and work at whatever job they want for as long as they want and quit whenever they want and walk into any store anywhere and take whatever they want without money being an issue and everybody should work for free and everything they want should be available for free because freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:50PM
There will always be a market for these anti-venoms. Yes, maybe a small market, but then you don't need to produce large quantities.
Seems to me that is you just produce some batches a year, there is hardly any overhead costs in producing them. Even generating a small profit on them should be possible. Equipment is pretty non-trivial... the only thing is maybe keeping a few snakes around, but you could maybe cooperate with zoos in that.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday November 25 2016, @08:30AM
Trump wants to lift a lot of the restrictions that are placed on experimental drugs for terminally ill patients and create a healthcare system that is competitive across state lines, which will always ensure consumers have the lowest prices available to them.
Crazy how even when we want the same things, we still won't admit it. Partisan politics, I know.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday November 25 2016, @06:34PM
You people are getting ripped off by Obamacare. Insurance companies jacked up their rates with the flimsy justification that "most employers pay it anyway".
I was surprised to learn that the insurance companies had essentially divided up the states amongst themselves. As long as the concept of universal coverage is preserved, Trump may be able to implement an improved system with the goals of Obamacare.
I think the idea of universal healthcare without a single payer is a little weird, but maybe if can work. People are required to get minimum insurance liability for driving their cars, for example. However if you have too many incidents with health, the alternative is to stop living.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday November 25 2016, @07:45PM
"I was surprised to learn that the insurance companies had essentially divided up the states amongst themselves."
And Obama signed off on it, knowing what it was, and not caring.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday November 25 2016, @04:05PM
I would prefer it if the government funded drug research though universities, then allowed the pharmaceutical companies to compete on manufacturing generic drugs.
I would prefer it if government just got out of the way quite a bit. The current situation is grossly immoral and shoveling all research into government make-work projects would make it worse. Even a completely deregulated situation where companies get away with blatantly unethical testing would be a step up.
But surely, we can do better than that with a sensible testing regime that doesn't force drugs to cost hundreds of millions per to develop?