Privatise the NHS

[Happy Face 29]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

 

New drugs for all!!!™ (please note: these drugs may be no better and you may not be able to afford them. Batteries not included)

[Renton 21983]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

[ChezGiven 0]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I know mate, i was just continuing the debate.

 

A bit melodramatic about Iraq anyway.

 

I dont push the 'privatisation' agenda either, i said we should do this as this is how it works in France / Gemrany etc. 14% of France's healthcare budget comes from privately paid mutuelles, which essentially makes the system two-tier. However, the added efficiencies from this sector is used to help financially lift up the wholly publicy funded sector. That's an economist's point of view.

 

Why should where i work be relevant? Does that mean you should not be able to comment on ID cards or NHS patient record systems since EDS specialises in delivering IT services for governments?

[ChezGiven 0]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

I have some very scary slides about EU demogrpahics and healthcare. Its only going to get worse too.

[Fop 1]

Why should where i work be relevant? Does that mean you should not be able to comment on ID cards or NHS patient record systems since EDS specialises in delivering IT services for governments?

 

Yes.

[ChezGiven 0]

Why should where i work be relevant? Does that mean you should not be able to comment on ID cards or NHS patient record systems since EDS specialises in delivering IT services for governments?

 

Yes.

 

You are disqualified from commenting on the issue then as you refuse to say what you do for a living.

[Happy Face 29]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

 

If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market.

 

Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*.

 

My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure.

 

* https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10)

Edited November 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I know mate, i was just continuing the debate.

 

A bit melodramatic about Iraq anyway.

 

I dont push the 'privatisation' agenda either, i said we should do this as this is how it works in France / Gemrany etc. 14% of France's healthcare budget comes from privately paid mutuelles, which essentially makes the system two-tier. However, the added efficiencies from this sector is used to help financially lift up the wholly publicy funded sector. That's an economist's point of view.

 

Why should where i work be relevant? Does that mean you should not be able to comment on ID cards or NHS patient record systems since EDS specialises in delivering IT services for governments?

 

You can comment all you like, but your line of business has to be relevant. I enjoy getting an insiders point of view, evil capitalist pig dog propaganda though it may well be

 

I don't think I've ever commented on IT service delivery threads though, in fact in CSA ones I've declined to comment too much and said why.

 

EDIT: In response to your other points, France surrender meekly when invaded and Germany produce no comedy entertainment whatsoever, why should we do what they do?

 

Where does that 14% come from mate? I'd be interested to read it, because SOME economists believe in trickle down, while the gap between top corporate directors earnings and their staff continues to grow exponentially.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

Why should where i work be relevant? Does that mean you should not be able to comment on ID cards or NHS patient record systems since EDS specialises in delivering IT services for governments?

 

Yes.

 

You are disqualified from commenting on the issue then as you refuse to say what you do for a living.

No.

[Fop 1]

I don't think I've ever commented on IT service delivery threads though, in fact in CSA ones I've declined to comment too much and said why.

 

 

It's only because you know what they do to squealers.

[Renton 21983]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

 

If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market.

 

Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*.

 

My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure.

 

* https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10)

 

Re: bolded bit, not necessarily as getting the government to pay for the drug will open it up to a much bigger market. Also you are ignoring competition from competing companies producing 'me too' drugs and complicating factors from the global market.

 

However, I admit I am no health economist (I specialise in clinical effectiveness) so can't contribute in depth to the discussion. I am acutely aware of the problems of a finite budget with near infinite ways to spend it though, I'm not sure you are. Idealism only gets you so far.

[Happy Face 29]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

 

If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market.

 

Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*.

 

My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure.

 

* https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10)

 

Re: bolded bit, not necessarily as getting the government to pay for the drug will open it up to a much bigger market. Also you are ignoring competition from competing companies producing 'me too' drugs and complicating factors from the global market.

 

However, I admit I am no health economist (I specialise in clinical effectiveness) so can't contribute in depth to the discussion. I am acutely aware of the problems of a finite budget with near infinite ways to spend it though, I'm not sure you are. Idealism only gets you so far.

 

But any corporation wants to maximise the profit on each unit sold, so they're always happiest to start rolling out the product as a top priced exclusive one for those that can afford it. Only once you saturate that market and (as you say) alternatives start coming along do you need to drop the price and expand your potential sales. It's the same as an X-box 360.

 

Hey, I'm nothing, but I like having the discussion so I can learn more. Having a finite budget is a reality, but using it as an excuse to allow a system were healthcare improves for those that can afford it, but deteriorates for those that can't? It's abandoning those in society that are most helpless. It's allowing corporations to dictate healthcare policy, they get you by the balls and don't let go.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

 

If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market.

 

Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*.

 

My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure.

 

* https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10)

 

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

[Fop 1]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

 

If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market.

 

Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*.

 

My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure.

 

* https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10)

 

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

 

Now all they have to do is allow you to take your tax contribution out of the NHS and let the fucker burn.

[Renton 21983]

They want to nationalise the pharmeceutical companies rather than privatise the NHS.

 

 

How does the UK government nationalise a Swiss/US/German/French/Japanese business who operates across the globe?

 

Hmm. They had one in Russia way back when, didnt produce anything though.

 

The government has looked at this for ages and come up with the only sensible conclusion.

 

I only said it to wind you up man. though there's plenty of British ones, including GSK who you worked for, right?

 

I don't know who you work for now, but as a previous employee of the second largest pharmeceutical company on the planet it's hardly suprising that you'd push the privatisation agenda. You might as well be a Blackwater worker justifying Iraq.

 

I would have thought GSK was pretty global like, any attempt to privatise it would just lead them to leave the UK entirely. Not that I think privatisation would even be desirable.

 

With ever improving (and expensive) technology and an aging demographic, paying top up fees (with or without insurance) for drugs that are not deemed cost effective seems eminently sensible to me. What realistic alternative do you suggest?

 

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

 

If we're willing to say to a pharmaceutical company "the drugs that you price too highly, you can sell at that non-cost effective price privately", what kind of incentive is that for them to produce the drugs at the lowest price possible? Every innovation would be initially priced to cater only to the private market.

 

Don't believe the hype that private firms go out on a limb altruistically pushing to cure diseases at huge cost to themselves and their shareholders and so deserve a return on that investment. US drug companies spend more than twice as much marketing their products as they do researching and developing them*.

 

My alternative? Keep assessing the cost effectiveness and refuse to bow to the pressure.

 

* https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP55.pdf (page 10)

 

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

 

Now all they have to do is allow you to take your tax contribution out of the NHS and let the fucker burn.

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

[Fop 1]

I'm still amused at the way water companies that sold water meters as a way of lowering bills are now raising prices due to the low water use in the last two rather wet summers.

 

Not to mention that "public" utility sector workers are getting the highest sector pay rises in the UK workforce (although still nothing like eclipsing the profits).

 

 

Must be all that extra efficiency.

[Fop 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

[Renton 21983]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

[ChezGiven 0]

Rents, more than happy to help mate, anytime.

 

I'll be at the Wigan game if you are around, can have a chat then.

[manc-mag 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

 

[Renton 21983]

Rents, more than happy to help mate, anytime.

 

I'll be at the Wigan game if you are around, can have a chat then.

 

Cheers, just an idea at the moment, I need to see if it has legs, will probably be at the Wigan meet.

[Fop 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

It was only bumped to mention and alleged prediction on the future of the NHS and public/private funding paths, is that derailing it? (and you're still at it )

[Fop 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

 

[Happy Face 29]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.