Proven life saving generic drugs are not being made because they do not bring in the profits.  Brand name drugs which cost a lot more, but only extend life are used, that is where the profits are.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/medicare-regulation-causes-shortages-of-cancer-drugs/243349/

The sad fact is, there are plenty of newer brand-name cancer drugs that do not cure anyone, but just extend life for a few months, at costs of up to $90,000 per patient. Only the older but curative cancer drugs — drugs that can cost as little as $3 per dose — have become unavailable...

...Most shortages appear instead to be the consequence of corporate decisions to cease production, or interruptions in production caused by money or quality problems, which manufacturers do not appear to be in a rush to fix. 

Proven life saving generic drugs are not being made because they do not bring in the profits.  Brand name drugs which cost a lot more, but only extend life are used, that is where the profits are.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/medicare-regulation-causes-shortages-of-cancer-drugs/243349/

The sad fact is, there are plenty of newer brand-name cancer drugs that do not cure anyone, but just extend life for a few months, at costs of up to $90,000 per patient. Only the older but curative cancer drugs — drugs that can cost as little as $3 per dose — have become unavailable...

...Most shortages appear instead to be the consequence of corporate decisions to cease production, or interruptions in production caused by money or quality problems, which manufacturers do not appear to be in a rush to fix. 


As a University of Chicago economist, I can tell you that pretty much any time a government gets into "price controls", unintended (but predictable and counterproductive) consequences happen, as shown once again in the article you referenced.

On the one hand, I don't believe in subjecting anybody's health to the profit motive.  On the other, if you're 90 years old and riddled with cancer, perhaps a million dollars is better invested elsewhere.

On the one hand, I don't believe in subjecting anybody's health to the profit motive.  On the other, if you're 90 years old and riddled with cancer, perhaps a million dollars is better invested elsewhere.



One of the drugs affected is highly effective in childhood lukemia

On the one hand, I don't believe in subjecting anybody's health to the profit motive.  On the other, if you're 90 years old and riddled with cancer, perhaps a million dollars is better invested elsewhere.



My dad will be 91 in Oct.  His doc wanted to test him for leukemia.  Both my sister and I said Why?  The test is painful (bone marrow extraction I think) and what if it is positive?  At 90, you know he's going to go fairly soon anyway.

Proven life saving generic drugs are not being made because they do not bring in the profits.  Brand name drugs which cost a lot more, but only extend life are used, that is where the profits are.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/medicare-regulation-causes-shortages-of-cancer-drugs/243349/

The sad fact is, there are plenty of newer brand-name cancer drugs that do not cure anyone, but just extend life for a few months, at costs of up to $90,000 per patient. Only the older but curative cancer drugs — drugs that can cost as little as $3 per dose — have become unavailable...

...Most shortages appear instead to be the consequence of corporate decisions to cease production, or interruptions in production caused by money or quality problems, which manufacturers do not appear to be in a rush to fix. 


The distortions the market imposes on pharmacology go beyond this.  My urologist is also a researcher, and got promising results with an alcohol based therapy, but had to discontinue that line because no one would fund his experiments - you can't patent alcohol.  I agree with Max, the profit motive has no place in health care

My dad will be 91 in Oct.  His doc wanted to test him for leukemia.  Both my sister and I said Why?  The test is painful (bone marrow extraction I think) and what if it is positive?  At 90, you know he's going to go fairly soon anyway.


This was the kernel of the "death panel" hysteria.  In Britain, National Health will not authorize expensive treatments in some cases, especially when the patient is elderly with a terminal condition.  We Americans think that's OUTRAGEOUS.  The US government has no business saying who's to live and who's to die!

Unless they're Indian, Black, Filipino, Vietnamese, Iraqi...

Shaddap, nobody likes a smartass!

The point is, your father should be able to get any treatment he wants, provided he's got the money to pay for it!


One of the drugs affected is highly effective in childhood lukemia


Oh, in that case, we send in our PR guy with a teddy bear and a baseball hero and tell the little buggar's parents they're all SOL!
:-\\

This was the kernel of the "death panel" hysteria.  In Britain, National Health will not authorize expensive treatments in some cases, especially when the patient is elderly with a terminal condition.  We Americans think that's OUTRAGEOUS.  The US government has no business saying who's to live and who's to die!

Unless they're Indian, Black, Filipino, Vietnamese, Iraqi...

Shaddap, nobody likes a smartass!

The point is, your father should be able to get any treatment he wants, provided he's got the money to pay for it!

Oh, in that case, we send in our PR guy with a teddy bear and a baseball hero and tell the little buggar's parents they're all SOL!
:-\\


Thing is, medicare would probably pay for the test and the treatment