You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
.....we're going to nationalise our pharmaceutical supply chain again
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/1012/28036/03-10-2018/blood-transfusion-scandal
Did someone forget that BPL was nationalised when this shit happened? Or are we all suffering from collective amnesia? Is government going to pony up the compensation when something like this happens under their watch?
Is there any good reason why governments can't pour more funding into publicly funded research bodies when it comes to anti-biotic research? Why is the instant reaction to just nationalise?
Surely the comments made in the paper linked to by the independent, in regards to public health priorities not dribing R&D budgets is partly a failure on the part of healthcare systems and governments not recognizing and identifying key public health needs and then placing contracts out to tender that private industry can compete for - that also lock private industry in contractually to try and keep a lid on costs? Much like the MOD are slowly and painfully learning to do?
Apologies, my first post was poorly worded. It's late....
Anyway
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/nationalised-drug-company-future-of-pharma/
In an article for the Financial Times, Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar gives the example that if the UK contributed 5% of the $1bn needed to bring a new antibiotic to market, it would only cost each taxpayer £0.06 per month. Whereas in a nationalised drug company it is possible that UK taxpayers could be responsible for 100% of the $1bn needed to bring a drug to market.
In a WHO controlled system, government funding would be further supported by private sector – particularly charitable – investment. These actors have proven their ability to support healthcare crises that are viewed as unprofitable; an excellent example is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s work in tackling malaria in collaboration with companies like GlaxoSmithKline.
Ultimately, one nationalised drug company – or even a few if other countries followed by example – would not be able to support and fund as many new antimicrobial drugs that are efficacious globally as quickly as an international programme backed by serious investment monitored by the WHO.
Are Labour pushing this line? Or are they going to go down the old school 1970's just ****ing nationalise it and worry about it later route?
It's my understanding that Labour would create a government funded generics manufacture? What's the point in that? As opposed to encouraging and directing R&D? Generics can be bought from abroad for significantly less than we can make them for?
Then, from the original Independent link?
But it doesn’t end there. In the last two years, the NHS spent £2bn on drugs where public money had funded their research and development. This means taxpayers are paying twice – first for the research, then for inflated prices the NHS is charged for the medicines. Take prostate cancer drug abiraterone, which was funded partly by the public purse but cost the NHS £172m from 2014 to 2016, and despite a generic version being available in India for a price 85 per cent lower.
Am I missing something here? Am I supposed to be surprised that a generic drug manufactured in India using cheaper labor, that hasn't required the same R&D costs and has been manufactured in a looser regulatory environment to boot - is 85 percent cheaper?
Well, they've been torn a new arsehole in the comments section in the Guardian 😀