That is correct, richrobinson. It is one of the things that my students don't realize until I teach it to them during my freshman class.

That's good to know. I saw an interview a few years back with an activist who talked as if the government provided significant funding. I should have checked it out more.

you would be amazed by how little funding the government actually does. The doctors at the research place I take part in trials at have pointed out on more than a few occasions that they don't do University drug or device tests because there is nothing coming from them to test. Meanwhile Lillly, Medtronic and Abbot are doing an excellent job of keeping them very busy.

The only argument I have heard against that made a little bit of sense is that sometimes the government helps fund the research. in those cases certain restrictions should apply but I think it is all part of how the government screws things up.

"I wonder what changed at the beginning of 2014... "
Underwriting became disallowed on Jan 1, 2014. So you're paying for your risk plus the risk of people who are already sick. Healthy people saw large increases and sick people saw large decreases. I re-did underwriting to get on a policy starting Dec 31, 2013, to avoid paying the higher rates, ($800/mo vs $400/mo). In 2015, I'll have to get on a PPACA-complaint plan, but my agent said rates may not be as bad b/c write now the insurance companies are preparing for a deluge of sick people who previously couldn't get "insurance". I am not counting on it being much below $800.

whoa.. that is an eye opener.. 20 years is the life of the patent.. Ok.. But, the FDA also gets to grant the exclusivity of the marketing of the drug. So, while you might have the patent, after the time you are allowed to be the only source of the drug the FDA can now compel a company to give up the formula and manufacturing process. I am going to guess that they also get their say on the license terms to second parties that want to now produce it. This is particularly messed up considering that thanks to the FDA it takes in the neighborhood of 10 years to get a new drug to market in the first place. As for the cost of cure on this one.. They need to shut the hell up. They in fact get a cure out of the deal. I would gladly pay several times that for a cure to type1 and I would not feel bad about it at all.

yes. It is estimated that roughly 1 billion dollars in R&D per new disruptive drug. Of course, this leads to pharma pushing drugs that people don't need.

Jan 1 2014 my BC/BS went up $200 per month!
I have had my policy 8 years at that time and it only went up a few bucks here, a few bucks there.
I wonder what changed at the beginning of 2014...

Beyond developing it had to pass many years of clinical trials. This could have been 15 years in the making involving the efforts of thousands of people in every capacity conceivable. Its too bad that many who need it cant afford it (yet). But with no ROI this company would have no choice but to stop inventing these drugs at all.

There you go. 3 - 7 years this drug will cost no more than my generic blood pressure medicine. Its just this company need an ROI ASAP otherwise it will cease to exist.

But purchase of said drugs should be paid voluntarily by users and not by govt mandate.
At free market this drug price (and many others) would likely be much lower.

The reason to undertake a risky development program for a drug that may not be approved is the developer may be able to sell it for thousands of dollars. It _feels_ wrong to pay for risk already taken, but mathematically is not different from paying for a treatment that was easy to develop but requires a lot of labor on the back end. IMHO this is just another amazing product that took a lot of work and risk to develop and is therefore expensive.

I found this on patents. The whole health care system is a mess thanks to the government and now they want "fix" it.

It depends on what type of exclusivity is granted.
Orphan Drug (ODE) - 7 years
New Chemical (NCE)- 5 years
"Other" Exclusivity - 3 years for a "change" if criteria are met
Pediatric Exclusivity (PED) - 6 months added to existing Patents/Exclusivity
Patent Challenge – (PC) – 180 days (this exclusivity is for ANDAs only)

If the US Gov didn't force drug makers to give up their patents (10 years max I think?), they would be sold at a reasonable price. The problem exists that they are forced to make whatever profit (I know, how evil) they can in that short amount of time before they are forced to hand over the recipe to the rest of the world.
If the Gov would keep their filthy nose out of such operations these drugs would be sold for less than 1/100th the price because they would receive the lifetime profits.

Free health care is not free. No surprise that health insurance rates always increase.