Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by fellellor on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:55AM
(#14264425)
I wonder how much of that is just the result of bureaucratic inefficiency. I'm sure if one looks deep enough and wide enough, that cost may be cut down by several orders of magnitude. Maybe not. However, no matter what the case, there may be no incentive to do so, for the people who are actually in a position to do such a thing.
Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by iplaw on Thursday May 04, 2017 @09:05AM
(#14264488)
I would have to say that not much is the result of pure bureaucratic inefficiency. The extensive clinical trials are there for a reason, and that is to prevent the release of thalidomide-like pharmaceuticals. Researching, developing, and vetting failed candidates is also a major cost that must be recouped via the drugs successfully brought to market. The actual costs associated with bureaucratic inefficiencies are nil in comparison.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development#Resea...
Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by everybodyknows on Friday May 12, 2017 @04:42PM
(#14327748)
Are FDA vetting standards really uniform across all drugs, from children's vaccines, to last-resort therapies for the terminally ill? The latter surely have little to lose in taking a risky drug -- if they can afford it.
Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by fellellor on Thursday May 04, 2017 @11:32AM
(#14265559)
I'm still not convinced.
Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by petra on Thursday May 04, 2017 @11:31AM
(#14265550)
>> The true cost of bringing a drug to market is 2.8B
While it does makes sense that pharma r&d is expensive ,It's really hard to believe those numbers, specially that they always seem to change: first it was ~$700M/drug, than ~1.5B and now 2.8B ?
Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by iplaw on Thursday May 04, 2017 @01:26PM
(#14266804)
It varies greatly, and the figures generated by third party studies are almost always lower than the self-reported figures. This article [1] from 2012 reports per-drug pharmaceutical R&D spend ranging from $3.7B to $11.8B. It's not the most transparent cost analysis.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tr...
Re:Apple has damaged the perceived value of software
by bzbarsky on Thursday May 04, 2017 @02:59PM
(#14267685)
Depending on what timeframe you're talking about for that change, the costs have in fact gone up, both because low-hanging fruit has been picked and because the regulatory regime has been changing over time to required more and more work to bring a drug to market.
The true cost of bringing a drug to market - inclusive of the extensive research and development required, the failed candidates, the FDA testing and approval processes, etc. - is around $2,800,000,000.
And so, as the saying goes, the first pill costs $2.8B, the second pill costs $0.01. "People" only consider the $0.01 cost to produce the pills that they desire to take, and seem to easily ignore that initial $2.8B investment. This is why patent protection is so critical to the success of many industries, especially medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
This also explains why drug companies refuse to develop life-saving drugs if the potential market for the drug is too small. In many cases, they would have to charge $1,000,000+ per treatment to break even. There are several medications on the market which, for the full course of treatment, cost around $300,000. This seems to be the upper limit in drug development, and insurance is willing to pay the price because one successful treatment will likely save them 10x that amount in the elimination of future care.
This is a recent (3/2/2017) article [1] on one such $300,000/year enzyme-based treatment for a rare disease which affects an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people worldwide! Development of drugs for rare diseases has been a major problem for quite a while, with legislation on the matter dating back to 1983. However, it's apparent that it's still a problem.
And here is another article on yet another $300,000 treatment (see, there's that number again) to treat cystic fibrosis.
[1]: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/pompe-drug-lauded-by-trump-co...
[2]: https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/09/19/sarepta-duchen...