Here's an interesting post from the Forbes blog. It notes that Americans may not understand the trade off they are making to obtain "ultrasafe" drugs. It takes the position that all the testing that is required with new oncology drugs, like Provenge for example at $93,000 per patient, results in long delays getting to market and forces producers to charge high prices to earnback their investment.
Is this what the public really wants? And do they understand this possible trade off in demanding that drugs be "ultrasafe". The post further suggests that alterations in IP laws which would effectively extend patent life on these medications post approval could help ameliorate the situation - similar to what is now seen in rare disease models/markets.
I'm sure consumer advocates and regulators, and generic competitors would adopt a differing view. What's yours?
Posted by Bruce Lehr July 16th 2010.
Comments