<story><title>Remdesivir will cost insurers $520 for a single vial. Production cost: 93 cents</title><url>https://theintercept.com/2020/07/01/coronavirus-treatment-drug-contracts-trump/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>api</author><text>Here is an idea: anyone can make a generic drug if an independent FDA lab cannot tell the difference between unlabeled samples from the new manufacturer and unlabeled identically packaged samples from a currently approved manufacturer.&lt;p&gt;You would need to do this testing continuously at random, so the FDA could just charge a fee for this. It would be way cheaper than full regulatory compliance.</text></item><item><author>javajosh</author><text>I tend to agree that gov needs to step in, however the libtertarian in me also wants to know: why doesn&amp;#x27;t someone start a business selling this drug for, say, $200 instead of $540? If the answer to that is that the regulatory burden is basically insurmountable thanks to decades of regulatory capture, then yeah, government needs to act. Presumably such a company doesn&amp;#x27;t need to do any research, or get new approvals! They just need to make the thing and distribute it.</text></item><item><author>jostmey</author><text>I see two issues being conflated here. The first issue is the outrageous prices for generic drugs. The second issue is the true cost of research.&lt;p&gt;Drug prices have been rising out of control even for generic drugs (think epipens). It seems that competition is not driving down prices of generics. Perhaps it is time for government to break up &amp;quot;big parhma&amp;quot;. Perhaps the FDA sets quality requirements so high that competitors cannot meet it, allowing that single manufacture to control prices.&lt;p&gt;The other issue is the true cost of research. The production cost is a fraction of the true cost. Research is expensive. There would be no Remdesivir if we only paid production costs. As a biomedical researcher, I am always on the fence about jumping jobs for something that will pay better. Many investors and techies vastly underestimate the cost of scientific research BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pvaldes</author><text>&amp;gt; anyone can make a generic drug if an independent FDA lab cannot tell the difference&lt;p&gt;I see a few problems with this plan&lt;p&gt;1) Makers would lose interest in research of simple drugs easy to clone or, more probably,...&lt;p&gt;They would fight back introducing additives in the mix, useless except for the sake of making the recipe much more difficult to copy, or to aim for a product recognizable for the public (i.e viagra must be &amp;quot;blue pills&amp;quot; not green pills, etc, but the blue colorant is in fact useless except for marketing purposes).&lt;p&gt;2) Because an increase in additives the number of crossed interactions with other medicines would raise exponentially and would be much more complicated to predict in multiple treatments&lt;p&gt;3) Potential collateral effects and allergies could increase also.&lt;p&gt;And it creates a system prone to corruption, of course (The makers can be blackmailed by the independent lab).</text></comment>
<story><title>Remdesivir will cost insurers $520 for a single vial. Production cost: 93 cents</title><url>https://theintercept.com/2020/07/01/coronavirus-treatment-drug-contracts-trump/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>api</author><text>Here is an idea: anyone can make a generic drug if an independent FDA lab cannot tell the difference between unlabeled samples from the new manufacturer and unlabeled identically packaged samples from a currently approved manufacturer.&lt;p&gt;You would need to do this testing continuously at random, so the FDA could just charge a fee for this. It would be way cheaper than full regulatory compliance.</text></item><item><author>javajosh</author><text>I tend to agree that gov needs to step in, however the libtertarian in me also wants to know: why doesn&amp;#x27;t someone start a business selling this drug for, say, $200 instead of $540? If the answer to that is that the regulatory burden is basically insurmountable thanks to decades of regulatory capture, then yeah, government needs to act. Presumably such a company doesn&amp;#x27;t need to do any research, or get new approvals! They just need to make the thing and distribute it.</text></item><item><author>jostmey</author><text>I see two issues being conflated here. The first issue is the outrageous prices for generic drugs. The second issue is the true cost of research.&lt;p&gt;Drug prices have been rising out of control even for generic drugs (think epipens). It seems that competition is not driving down prices of generics. Perhaps it is time for government to break up &amp;quot;big parhma&amp;quot;. Perhaps the FDA sets quality requirements so high that competitors cannot meet it, allowing that single manufacture to control prices.&lt;p&gt;The other issue is the true cost of research. The production cost is a fraction of the true cost. Research is expensive. There would be no Remdesivir if we only paid production costs. As a biomedical researcher, I am always on the fence about jumping jobs for something that will pay better. Many investors and techies vastly underestimate the cost of scientific research BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>javajosh</author><text>Sounds good to me, but I don&amp;#x27;t think it would fly. It&amp;#x27;s too reactive. The FDA needs to be able to take proactive steps to avoid mistakes. So, I take your idea and raise you:&lt;p&gt;Put cameras everywhere in your lab&amp;#x2F;factory, and give the FDA inspectors 24x7 access to every feed. This is in addition to allowing onsite random inspections, of course.&lt;p&gt;I mean, as a consumer, this would make me feel warm and fuzzy about buying drugs from that company. I mean, you could even allow the public access to those feeds, as a marketing tool!</text></comment>