Medical Drugs in Short Supply - Who to Blame?

[HoosierGuy]

Yesterday CBS News ran a story on how some very important medical drugs in the U.S. are in extremly short supply and in some cases patients can not even recieve the life saving drugs to fight diseases including cancer.

A life and death wait for cancer medications in short supply - USATODAY.com

Across the country, thousands of Americans like Norris are being confronted with shortages of Doxil and dozens of other medications that are forcing them into less-effective treatments or no treatment at all. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the number of drug shortages has nearly tripled over the past six years, rising from 61 in 2005 to a record 178 last year.

Every story about this issue says there are many reasons why we have these shortages. One of the reasons is that some companies are refusing to make drugs because they are making enough of a profit.

Why shouldn't the U.S. government step in and do something about this? The U.S government should take over the production of those drugs and sell them at prices that people can afford. I don't know about you but I can't can't deny a woman or man dying from Leukemia or some other disease.

[Just_A_Guy]

I just want to note for the record that HoosierGuy has here confessed that it is possible for the evil capitalists to cease profitable activity on the grounds that they are already "making enough of a profit"

[Spartan117]

I just want to note for the record that HoosierGuy has here confessed that it is possible for the evil capitalists to cease profitable activity on the grounds that they are already "making enough of a profit"

I have a small bit of personal experience with our current health care system and the pharmaceutical companies as well. If what you said is a private joke I apologize for jumping in but if you're comment was seriously sarcastic I would love to exchange some facts and ideas with you over this subject in a separate thread.

[Dravin]

I have a small bit of personal experience with our current health care system and the pharmaceutical companies as well. If what you said is a private joke I apologize for jumping in but if you're comment was seriously sarcastic I would love to exchange some facts and ideas with you over this subject in a separate thread.

HoosierGuy has a less than favorable view of business, that business wouldn't pursue any and all profit seems at odds with his past voiced opinions.

[slamjet]

I blame lawyers. They're suing everything in site if a drug so much as cause a rash.

[Spartan117]

HoosierGuy has a less than favorable view of business, that business wouldn't pursue any and all profit seems at odds with his past voiced opinions.

Fair enough. I really wasn't trying to pick at something if it wasn't there, or if it didn't concern me at all. I didn't wanna step on anyone's toes either. Thank you :)

[Saldrin]

I blame Big Government, they are not the solution to problems, they ARE the problem!

[rameumptom]

And therein lies the problem Over regulation and law suits force companies into making decisions that can slow down the process. Government take over just would not help, but would create bigger shortages. How do I know? Just look at health care in Canada or England, where it is run by the government. Most have to wait over a year to get a cat scan or MRI. That is an accepted norm for them.

That occasionally there are shortages of medicines is often because the over regulation causes a batch to have to be rejected if it does not exactly meet the expectations of government. Over regulation can cause the following: If a medicine must have 200 mg of a certain element, but is accidentally made with 205 mg or 195 mg, then the whole batch is discarded. It isn't close enough. Or because of minor things, a factory or lab can be shut down temporarily or permanently by the government for safety factors, which affects the supply needs.

[LittleWyvern]

I blame Big Government, they are not the solution to problems, they ARE the problem!

Although, this same problem would occur in a laissez-faire (i.e. no government) economy as well, if not more so. In a pure free market economy, the price of a commodity is... the price of the commodity, and any attempts to change the price or fix it lower would be opposed as disturbing the invisible hand of the market. So, with no government regulation, if all medicines were priced way above what anybody could reasonably afford, that would be normal. "Supply and Demand!" laissez-faire economists would argue, "The free market is at work and the price just reflects it." It's a rather utilitarian method. So I think there is some proper role here for government regulation (i.e. ensuring that there is sufficient supply by perhaps subsidizing the production of medicine, etc.) but we should be careful defining that role, even though I know it's lots more popular now-a-days to just blame everything on government programs and try to throw them out entirely. :)

[rameumptom]

But in a true laissez-faire free market, if one company chose to sell their product at a very high price, out of the reach of most people, you would soon see other companies providing a similar product for a much cheaper price.

This is exactly how we see it in the free markets, even with regulation getting in the way. Apple creates the IPod, IPhone, IPad, and gives them a premium price. Many purchase them, but they are out of the price range for many more. So you soon see other companies fill in at the lower rungs of the price range, selling MP3 players, Android cell phones and tablets for less. In fact, today, Amazon is bringing out a $250 tablet called the Kindle Fire.

If we didn't have all the long term government patent and copyright protections we now have, which allow some to last for decades, if not centuries, then we could see even more competition. Those drugs would drop quickly in price if a patent were to last only 3-5 years instead. And, like aspirin, would be plentiful.

[MarginOfError]

But in a true laissez-faire free market, if one company chose to sell their product at a very high price, out of the reach of most people, you would soon see other companies providing a similar product for a much cheaper price.

This is exactly how we see it in the free markets, even with regulation getting in the way. Apple creates the IPod, IPhone, IPad, and gives them a premium price. Many purchase them, but they are out of the price range for many more. So you soon see other companies fill in at the lower rungs of the price range, selling MP3 players, Android cell phones and tablets for less. In fact, today, Amazon is bringing out a $250 tablet called the Kindle Fire.

If we didn't have all the long term government patent and copyright protections we now have, which allow some to last for decades, if not centuries, then we could see even more competition. Those drugs would drop quickly in price if a patent were to last only 3-5 years instead. And, like aspirin, would be plentiful.

On the flip side, you might see a lot less development because companies wouldn't be able to recover the costs of the development of the drug before the patent expired. Before a new drug ever hits the market, it is in the red millions of dollars.

[rameumptom]

But with fewer regulations, they would be cheaper to make and cheaper during testing, etc. Companies would have greater incentive to invent in order to have new patents and copyrights.

[MarginOfError]

And just to argue with myself some....less development might not be a bad thing anyway. We've known for a long time that diet, exercise, and good lifestyle choices are the biggest predictors of health.

In some of the studies I work on now, if we add a medication to a patient's treatment, we might extend their life, on average, 1 - 2 years. But if the patient were to make consistent life style and diet changes, he or she could extend life by 5 - 6 years.

The problem isn't that the drugs are in short supply--the problem is that people are so lazy that they depend on the drug.

[MarginOfError]

But with fewer regulations, they would be cheaper to make and cheaper during testing, etc. Companies would have greater incentive to invent in order to have new patents and copyrights.

I don't know, Ram...I don't want testing to be cheaper. I certainly don't want to lower the bar of evidence on companies that are more interested in making profits than they are about providing better health care.

[john doe]

I blame George Bush, Conservatives, and the Military-Industrial complex. Mainly because Liberals are never a part of the problem, or even contribute in any way to it.

[MarginOfError]

I blame George Bush, Conservatives, and the Military-Industrial complex. Mainly because Liberals are never a part of the problem, or even contribute in any way to it.

On behalf of liberals everywhere, John Doe, I want to welcome you into your enlightened state.

[LittleWyvern]

But in a true laissez-faire free market, if one company chose to sell their product at a very high price, out of the reach of most people, you would soon see other companies providing a similar product for a much cheaper price.

...

If we didn't have all the long term government patent and copyright protections we now have, which allow some to last for decades, if not centuries, then we could see even more competition. Those drugs would drop quickly in price if a patent were to last only 3-5 years instead. And, like aspirin, would be plentiful.

This assumes a world where there is no corruption, no collusion, no greed, etc. True laissez-faire economy works on paper, but in practice human nature kinda foils it. Or, "if men were angels no government would be necessary." Hence, regulation (in a limited way) helps keep the free market free.

All I'm trying to say is we need to have a balance between over-regulation (which chokes businesses) and under-regulation (which chokes people).

Edited September 28, 2011 by LittleWyvern
spelling fail!

[RescueMom]

As a duel citizen of Canada and the US...I don't find the Canadian health care system nearly as bad as people say it is. I have found the wait times to be about the same in both systems. meh. I also have friends from the UK and they like their system too. I guess it's all from the POV.

I don't see how government can fix this, but I don't think Big Insurance and Big Pharma are going to fix it either, even if they weren't regulated. I have little faith in humanity to do the right thing by humans, that includes government, business and just regular people.

For the record I'm a registered Independent, so mud slinging from either side is a useless straw man tactic to try to change my opinion of either party.

[Vort]

For the record I'm a registered Independent, so mud slinging from either side is a useless straw man tactic to try to change my opinion of either party.

So merely by registering as an Independent, you avoid being wrongly influenced by any party's logical errors and false claims?

That's awesome. I had no idea registering as an Independent was so powerful. If the parties find out about this, they'll be furious.

[RescueMom]

Well Vort,

It simply means I don't buy the whole snake oil that both are selling, and means that I can form my own opinion and not lock step with either side...I know I think on my own. And yes it does make both parties furious when I call a spade a spade.

And it's not so powerful, because we Independents can't vote in primaries in most states. Had that been an option things would be different.

But bless your heart for being so concerned about my politcal stances. It makes me feel great that someone is listening to my mumblings.

[RescueMom]

And for the record, Vort, I swing mostly center left on most issues....well except Immigaration, Gun Congtrol and Abortion, then I'm hard right.

[NeuroTypical]

Why shouldn't the U.S. government step in and do something about this? The U.S government should take over the production of those drugs and sell them at prices that people can afford.

Well, I suppose somebody ought to give a direct answer to HoosierGuy. Here's a direct answer:

The US Government should not step in, take over, and set prices, because of that pesky little thing called the 10 commandments. Specifically, "Thou shall not steal". AKA לֹא תִּגְנֹֽב׃ ס in Hebrew, or οὐ κλέψεις, if you prefer Greek.

I can't find anywhere that says "thou shall not steal, unless someone needs it more, then it's ok."

[Vort]

It simply means I don't buy the whole snake oil that both are selling, and means that I can form my own opinion and not lock step with either side...I know I think on my own.

It's too bad those who belong to a political party are forced to walk lock-step with their side, unable to think on their own. I guess part of that lock-step mind control is their inability to be a registered Independent. Or maybe they just want to vote in the primaries.

[HoosierGuy]

And therein lies the problem Over regulation and law suits force companies into making decisions that can slow down the process. Government take over just would not help, but would create bigger shortages. How do I know? Just look at health care in Canada or England, where it is run by the government. Most have to wait over a year to get a cat scan or MRI. That is an accepted norm for them.

Come on now. That is not completely true. Yes, you will find cases when it is true but the far majority, probably 99% of British and Canadians would never ever exchange their healthcare system for the U.S. system. Your arguments are typical talking points from big businesses.

[RescueMom]

So if I voice my opinion about myself, and myself only, I am infering everyone right? Just need some clarification on the words you are putting in my mouth. Thanks.