Comments on: How Medical Breakthroughs Happen: A Response to Megan McArdle http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/ The New Ledger on News, Politics, and Market issues of the day. Welcome to the Know. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:13:33 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Rachel Fagen http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/comment-page-1/#comment-579 Rachel Fagen Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:26:27 +0000 http://newledger.com/?p=15545#comment-579 Ben Domenech on How Medical Breakthroughs Happen @NewLedger. Hint: it's not free-market Pharma saving lives with profit-capital. Ben Domenech on How Medical Breakthroughs Happen @NewLedger. Hint: it's not free-market Pharma saving lives with profit-capital.

]]> By: Carolyn http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/comment-page-1/#comment-577 Carolyn Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:18:48 +0000 http://newledger.com/?p=15545#comment-577 I think that basic breakthroughs happened more often in the private sector before the biomedical era. But I still don't think the government is well-suited for bringing biomedical products to market. There may be a case to be made for government production of products which will help a small patient population. But funding for such projects is also likely to be based on political considerations. Including cost considerations. <br><br> You're right about the fear of litigation being a major driver of research directions within the pharmaceutical industry. No company wants to introduce a product which turns out to harm people more than it helps them. If the government starts producing pharmaceuticals, litigation will be much harder. <br><br>Introduction of finished new products by the government could be much slower because a profit motive is replaced by the desire for more grant money. Or where there is a lot of political pressure to "do something", introduction of new products could be faster, as greater risks are taken with the health of large populations.<br><br>In terms of product safety and quality, my impression is that the government makes a better watchdog than a producer. I think that basic breakthroughs happened more often in the private sector before the biomedical era. But I still don't think the government is well-suited for bringing biomedical products to market. There may be a case to be made for government production of products which will help a small patient population. But funding for such projects is also likely to be based on political considerations. Including cost considerations.

You're right about the fear of litigation being a major driver of research directions within the pharmaceutical industry. No company wants to introduce a product which turns out to harm people more than it helps them. If the government starts producing pharmaceuticals, litigation will be much harder.

Introduction of finished new products by the government could be much slower because a profit motive is replaced by the desire for more grant money. Or where there is a lot of political pressure to “do something”, introduction of new products could be faster, as greater risks are taken with the health of large populations.

In terms of product safety and quality, my impression is that the government makes a better watchdog than a producer.

]]>