Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

or the post office?
Another brilliant move by our Dear Leader.

Federal agency to spearhead new drug-development center

"The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines.

The new effort comes as many large drugmakers, unable to find enough new drugs, are paring back research. Promising discoveries in such illnesses as depression and Parkinson's that once would have led to clinical trials are instead going unexplored because companies have neither the will nor the resources to undertake the effort. Drug companies have typically spent twice as much on marketing as on research, a business model that is increasingly suspect.

The initial financing of the government's new drug center is small compared with the $45.8 billion that the industry estimates it invested in research in 2009. The cost of bringing a single drug to market can exceed $1 billion, according to some estimates."

Where do you come up with these analogies, Baldy?


Hey, how about NASA? Would you buy your meds from NASA?

houndawg wrote:Where do you come up with these analogies, Baldy?


Hey, how about NASA? Would you buy your meds from NASA?

Wow...speaking of bad analogies.

For your sake, I'll try to make this as simple as I can...
Space exploration is not a business. However, rail service is a business, package delivery is a business, home mortgages is a business, and so is the pharmaceutical industry.

Do we really need to go over the track record of government run enterprises?

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote:Where do you come up with these analogies, Baldy?


Hey, how about NASA? Would you buy your meds from NASA?

Wow...speaking of bad analogies.

For your sake, I'll try to make this as simple as I can...
Space exploration is not a business. However, rail service is a business, package delivery is a business, home mortgages is a business, and so is the pharmaceutical industry.

Do we really need to go over the track record of government run enterprises?

Space exploration isn't a business?


I think hundreds of NASA sub-contractors would disagree. Not to mention the private firms now entering the field.

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote:Where do you come up with these analogies, Baldy?


Hey, how about NASA? Would you buy your meds from NASA?

Wow...speaking of bad analogies.

For your sake, I'll try to make this as simple as I can...
Space exploration is not a business. However, rail service is a business, package delivery is a business, home mortgages is a business, and so is the pharmaceutical industry.

Do we really need to go over the track record of government run enterprises?

Government is not a business.

I thought Z was the bad analogy guy.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Wow...speaking of bad analogies.

For your sake, I'll try to make this as simple as I can...
Space exploration is not a business. However, rail service is a business, package delivery is a business, home mortgages is a business, and so is the pharmaceutical industry.

Do we really need to go over the track record of government run enterprises?

Government is not a business.

I thought Z was the bad analogy guy.

Of course government isn't a business...hence the failures of Amtrak, the post office, Fannie and Freddie, Medicare, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

That went right over your head, kalm.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Government is not a business.

I thought Z was the bad analogy guy.

Of course government isn't a business...hence the failures of Amtrak, the post office, Fannie and Freddie, Medicare, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

That went right over your head, kalm.

There are numerous examples of successfully run government enterprises. Not everything needs to be run like a business.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Of course government isn't a business...hence the failures of Amtrak, the post office, Fannie and Freddie, Medicare, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

That went right over your head, kalm.

There are numerous examples of successfully run government enterprises. Not everything needs to be run like a business.

Of course it doesn't, and that's where government needs to come into the picture.
However, the government doesn't need to be involved in private sector enterprises like mortgage lending, rail service. parcel delivery, health care, etc.
The government's failure in those industries is clear and undeniable.

Actually, this might be the best healthcare-related idea to come out of Washington in a long time. Getting a clinical trial together (which is required for any drug to be approved by the FDA) is expensive and can be logistically difficult. You first have to recruit patients with the condition you are studying (which is time-consuming if it isn't expensive and is full of legal minefields and paperwork) and you have to recruit doctors (who aren't exactly cheap and don't exactly have a lot of spare time) who can get into contact with said patients and administer treatments being tested. Then you have to have to put together a panel of doctors and statisticians/data analysts who don't work for the drug company to oversee the trial. Why not lift some of the burden of these things off of drug companies?

There is a huge queue of promising drugs and medical procedures just waiting to get to the clinical trial stage. Pharmaceuticals are our #2 export and is also among our fastest-growing exports. If you want to create some manufacturing jobs in the US and take a big bite out of the trade deficit, freeing up the big logjam in getting drugs to the market is a good way.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
There are numerous examples of successfully run government enterprises. Not everything needs to be run like a business.

Of course it doesn't, and that's where government needs to come into the picture.
However, the government doesn't need to be involved in private sector enterprises like mortgage lending, rail service. parcel delivery, health care, etc.
The government's failure in those industries is clear and undeniable.

You and I can disagree about the scope of government, but in regards to financial sector enterprises, the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation are two examples of government success. In general I want government out of most industries, especially manufacturing. But things like healthcare and parts of banking should be viewed more as utilities.

Pwns wrote:Actually, this might be the best healthcare-related idea to come out of Washington in a long time. Getting a clinical trial together (which is required for any drug to be approved by the FDA) is expensive and can be logistically difficult. You first have to recruit patients with the condition you are studying (which is time-consuming if it isn't expensive and is full of legal minefields and paperwork) and you have to recruit doctors (who aren't exactly cheap and don't exactly have a lot of spare time) who can get into contact with said patients and administer treatments being tested. Then you have to have to put together a panel of doctors and statisticians/data analysts who don't work for the drug company to oversee the trial. Why not lift some of the burden of these things off of drug companies?

There is a huge queue of promising drugs and medical procedures just waiting to get to the clinical trial stage. Pharmaceuticals are our #2 export and is also among our fastest-growing exports. If you want to create some manufacturing jobs in the US and take a big bite out of the trade deficit, freeing up the big logjam in getting drugs to the market is a good way.

If the government is going to undertake doing $1 billion research for the drug companies, then the drug companies should be prepared to pay the government HEAVILY for the privilege of manufacturing, and making a profit from, the drugs the government comes up with. I'm not sure the government has the stones to negotiate such terms (see the prescription drug government-can't-negotiate-what-they'll-pay nonsense), so then this becomes the government taking on the costs and risks of development, while the companies get to cash in on the profit.

mebison wrote:

Pwns wrote:Actually, this might be the best healthcare-related idea to come out of Washington in a long time. Getting a clinical trial together (which is required for any drug to be approved by the FDA) is expensive and can be logistically difficult. You first have to recruit patients with the condition you are studying (which is time-consuming if it isn't expensive and is full of legal minefields and paperwork) and you have to recruit doctors (who aren't exactly cheap and don't exactly have a lot of spare time) who can get into contact with said patients and administer treatments being tested. Then you have to have to put together a panel of doctors and statisticians/data analysts who don't work for the drug company to oversee the trial. Why not lift some of the burden of these things off of drug companies?

There is a huge queue of promising drugs and medical procedures just waiting to get to the clinical trial stage. Pharmaceuticals are our #2 export and is also among our fastest-growing exports. If you want to create some manufacturing jobs in the US and take a big bite out of the trade deficit, freeing up the big logjam in getting drugs to the market is a good way.

If the government is going to undertake doing $1 billion research for the drug companies, then the drug companies should be prepared to pay the government HEAVILY for the privilege of manufacturing, and making a profit from, the drugs the government comes up with. I'm not sure the government has the stones to negotiate such terms (see the prescription drug government-can't-negotiate-what-they'll-pay nonsense), so then this becomes the government taking on the costs and risks of development, while the companies get to cash in on the profit.

Drug companies spend over $40 Billion on R&D every year. If anything, the government would be nothing more than a nuisance.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Of course it doesn't, and that's where government needs to come into the picture.
However, the government doesn't need to be involved in private sector enterprises like mortgage lending, rail service. parcel delivery, health care, etc.
The government's failure in those industries is clear and undeniable.

You and I can disagree about the scope of government, but in regards to financial sector enterprises, the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation are two examples of government success. In general I want government out of most industries, especially manufacturing. But things like healthcare and parts of banking should be viewed more as utilities.

That's nice, you can give two obscure references. but I can give you 10 failures for every two success stories.
The HOLC and the RTC both been disbanded, and it's becoming more rare that government entities like those two ever go away when they are not needed anymore.

I think you guys misunderstand the point of this. They aren't going to throw random s*** at the wall just to see what sticks. They are doing a lot of the research and testing the private sector would be doing if they only had more money for it.

Pwns wrote:I think you guys misunderstand the point of this. They aren't going to throw random s*** at the wall just to see what sticks. They are doing a lot of the research and testing the private sector would be doing if they only had more money for it.

Not true.

They're going to have Amtrak conductors doing genetic testing and post masters doing Phase III human trials.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
You and I can disagree about the scope of government, but in regards to financial sector enterprises, the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation are two examples of government success. In general I want government out of most industries, especially manufacturing. But things like healthcare and parts of banking should be viewed more as utilities.

That's nice, you can give two obscure references. but I can give you 10 failures for every two success stories.
The HOLC and the RTC both been disbanded, and it's becoming more rare that government entities like those two ever go away when they are not needed anymore.

There was nothing obscure about either. One was a new deal policy that kept people in their homes during the depression the other helped resolve the S&L crisis. They were both disbanded because they were extremely successful in working through a crisis while costing the tax payees nada. They met their obligations. One could also make a case for TARP although that still remains to be seen. But yes there have been many which came with unintended consequences and unfortunately have not gone away. But government isn't the problem, shitty government is.

Pwns wrote:I think you guys misunderstand the point of this. They aren't going to throw random s*** at the wall just to see what sticks. They are doing a lot of the research and testing the private sector would be doing if they only had more money for it.

But don't they already have universities to do that? Why start a new lab just for this, when there are tons of well-equipped, well-staffed research labs out there scrambling for NIH dollars?

And its hard to understand how its going to make a significant difference in the "research private industry can't afford to do" if its only a couple billion compared to industry's 45 billion/yr?

danefan wrote:

Pwns wrote:I think you guys misunderstand the point of this. They aren't going to throw random s*** at the wall just to see what sticks. They are doing a lot of the research and testing the private sector would be doing if they only had more money for it.

Not true.

They're going to have Amtrak conductors doing genetic testing and post masters doing Phase III human trials.

Pwns first post was also the first one in this thread that had a point I could get anywhere close to understanding.

I think the idea is that if you mail your left-over drugs to the White House, they will research the fastest Amtrak route to view a shuttle launch???

mebison wrote:

Pwns wrote:Actually, this might be the best healthcare-related idea to come out of Washington in a long time. Getting a clinical trial together (which is required for any drug to be approved by the FDA) is expensive and can be logistically difficult. You first have to recruit patients with the condition you are studying (which is time-consuming if it isn't expensive and is full of legal minefields and paperwork) and you have to recruit doctors (who aren't exactly cheap and don't exactly have a lot of spare time) who can get into contact with said patients and administer treatments being tested. Then you have to have to put together a panel of doctors and statisticians/data analysts who don't work for the drug company to oversee the trial. Why not lift some of the burden of these things off of drug companies?

There is a huge queue of promising drugs and medical procedures just waiting to get to the clinical trial stage. Pharmaceuticals are our #2 export and is also among our fastest-growing exports. If you want to create some manufacturing jobs in the US and take a big bite out of the trade deficit, freeing up the big logjam in getting drugs to the market is a good way.

If the government is going to undertake doing $1 billion research for the drug companies, then the drug companies should be prepared to pay the government HEAVILY for the privilege of manufacturing, and making a profit from, the drugs the government comes up with. I'm not sure the government has the stones to negotiate such terms (see the prescription drug government-can't-negotiate-what-they'll-pay nonsense),so then this becomes the government taking on the costs and risks of development, while the companies get to cash in on the profit.

Works for the oil industry.

houndawg wrote:

mebison wrote:
If the government is going to undertake doing $1 billion research for the drug companies, then the drug companies should be prepared to pay the government HEAVILY for the privilege of manufacturing, and making a profit from, the drugs the government comes up with. I'm not sure the government has the stones to negotiate such terms (see the prescription drug government-can't-negotiate-what-they'll-pay nonsense),so then this becomes the government taking on the costs and risks of development, while the companies get to cash in on the profit.

Works for the oil industry.

the government takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry?

Houndawg, how delusional are you

I self-medicate on Amtrak trains all the time.

BDKJMU wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Works for the oil industry.

the government takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry?

Houndawg, how delusional are you

Government took a lot of risks to secure Iraqs oil for the oil industry, BD. Put Osama on the back burner to do it.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam, but that was all about bearing the cost for big oil back when the world's largest unproven reserves were in the South China Sea.

We do the dying, they sell us the oil.


Every GI who served in Iraq and the dependents of those who died should get free gas for life from the oil scum he risked his neck for.

Amtrak did a great job of getting my parents from Springfield to Chicago everytime they visited my sister.

Dear Leader? Reference to a dictator? I didn't know Bush/Cheney were behind this.


FYI, $700 Million of this project consist of basic research that is already underway at the NIH, this would be consolidating those research groups at the NIH under the same program. The director of the NIH hopes that by developing new drugs at the NIH, congress will increase the funding above $1 billion. What's so bad about that? Government funds research all over the nation, including at University Laboratories/private labs that end up developing drugs, crop products, research tools, etc for profit. Basic research is not profitable for a biotech/pharma company, which is why many of them don't see the purpose in venturing out to find new leads unless they are almost absolutely certain their is a drug/profit to be made.

NIH already has research labs that are directed at conducting basic research... if they get a good hit on something that may lead to a cure/drug development, would you rather them publish their findings, sit on it, and wait for a pharmaceutical/biotech firm to decide if it is worth their while, pick up on it and develop a drug where it will be most certainly for profit (nothing wrong with that, if your a corporation), or would you rather the big bad socialist government produce that drug for cheaper and never have to worry about them cutting the supply due to profitability? When those drugs made by Pharma/Biotech stop being profitable, the companies stop making them... I don't see the same thing happening with a drug created by the gov.

About 150 drugs are currently in shortage, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, including sedatives, cancer drugs, and pain medications. The shortage has been going on since the spring.

......

There are various reasons for the shortage. Sometimes the source of raw materials for a drug has dried up. Other times, quality issues have closed down a manufacturing plant.

In other cases, it's about drug companies and profits.

"If the costs associated with making a drug begin to outweigh the profits, companies may wish to discontinue production of the drug in favor of a newer, more profitable product," Valerie Jensen and Dr. Bob Rappaport wrote this summer in the New England Journal of Medicine.

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010 ... -patients/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Of course these companies need to stay profitable in order to stay afloat... but have fun getting those drugs you need if they decide they're no longer profitable.


Plus you gotta worry about quality from Biotech/Pharma (from a recent 60 minutes report)

(CBS) Of all the things that you trust every day, you want to believe your prescription medicine is safe and effective. The pharmaceutical industry says that it follows the highest standards for quality. But in November, we found out just how much could go wrong at one of the world's largest drug makers. A subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to distributing adulterated drugs.

There was reason to believe that some of the medications were contaminated with bacteria, others were mislabeled, and some were too strong or not strong enough.

mebison wrote:

Pwns wrote:I think you guys misunderstand the point of this. They aren't going to throw random s*** at the wall just to see what sticks. They are doing a lot of the research and testing the private sector would be doing if they only had more money for it.

But don't they already have universities to do that? Why start a new lab just for this, when there are tons of well-equipped, well-staffed research labs out there scrambling for NIH dollars?

And its hard to understand how its going to make a significant difference in the "research private industry can't afford to do" if its only a couple billion compared to industry's 45 billion/yr?

They aren't starting new labs, at this moment. Initially they are just consolidating labs already in existence that have promising leads.

You also must consider that only 2% of that $45 billion R&D goes towards the development of new products, or about $900 million if using the cited $45 billion. The rest is spent on currently approved drugs or to make "better"/ "me too" versions of current drugs.

Article from 2004:

One obvious approach is direct funding of drug development. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the national agency in the United States, already spends $27 billion per year on research, a substantial amount of which is directed towards drug development, including clinical trials. The NIH already has a track record in developing important drugs for severe illnesses, such as cancer or AIDS, showing that this is a viable model. It is also widely recognised that much of the research carried out across the world by similar agencies underpins the existing commercial research that leads to new drugs.

Love, J et al. A New Trade Framework for Global Healthcare R&D PLoS Biol. 2004 February; 2(2): e52.