[Ip-health] A Solution to Corruption and Inefficiency in Drug T rials

[proclus@gnu-darwin.org]

--
On 11 Mar, Liz Chimienti wrote:
> In order to ensure full disclosure of the results of these trials, the fe=
deral contracts for testers would require that all results be available to =
the public and posted on the internet. Public access to this data should el=
iminate needless duplication in the drug development process and also facil=
itate comparative assessments of like drugs.
>
> The report goes on to demonstrate how this new system could save state an=
d local governments in excess of $120 billion dollars over the course of 10=
 years. If comparable price reductions are applied to the private sector as=
 well, the savings would total over $900 billion.
>
> Other potential benefits include:
>
> -    Publicly funded trials may be conducted at a lower cost than industr=
y-sponsored trials since there would be no incentive for independent contra=
ctors to overpay participating physicians as a way to encourage them to pre=
scribe the company's drugs.
>
> -    Research could advance more quickly since all results from publicly =
funded trials would be immediately and fully disclosed, thus allowing other=
 researchers to benefit from this information.
>
> -    Lower drug prices would substantially reduce the waste associated wi=
th efforts by insurers and other third-party payers to restrict the use of =
high-priced drugs.

There is possibly a good argument against handing pharmaceutical
research over to a government agency.  Part of the incentive to develop
new drugs is removed, an argument that would certainly be made by the
pharma lobbies.

I agree that the public interest demands that pharmaceutical research
be done in the public eye.  An alternative to the CEPR proposal would be
to simply mandate that all pharmaceutical research be done in the realm
of public knowledge, which would accomplish the same goals without
creating a new bureaucracy.  The patent system would continue assure
profitability to the distributors of the new drugs, while public access
would assist in the development of new drugs and encourage the
development of generics as well.

I'm definitely interested in the response to this alternative proposal
and a defense of the CEPR proposal in light of this one.

Regards,
Michael L. Love Ph.D
Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry
School of Medicine
Johns Hopkins University
725 N. Wolfe Street
Room 608B WBSB
Baltimore MD 21205-2185

Interoffice Mail: 608B WBSB, SoM
Shipping Dock: 1915 E. Madison St.

office: 410-614-2267
lab:    410-614-3179
fax:    410-502-6910
cell:   443-824-3451
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/



--
Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O
M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++
h--- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]