Medical Drugs in Short Supply - Who to Blame?

[HoosierGuy]

Yesterday CBS News ran a story on how some very important medical drugs in the U.S. are in extremly short supply and in some cases patients can not even recieve the life saving drugs to fight diseases including cancer.


A life and death wait for cancer medications in short supply - USATODAY.com

Across the country, thousands of Americans like Norris are being confronted with shortages of Doxil and dozens of other medications that are forcing them into less-effective treatments or no treatment at all. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the number of drug shortages has nearly tripled over the past six years, rising from 61 in 2005 to a record 178 last year.


Every story about this issue says there are many reasons why we have these shortages. One of the reasons is that some companies are refusing to make drugs because they are making enough of a profit.

Why shouldn't the U.S. government step in and do something about this? The U.S government should take over the production of those drugs and sell them at prices that people can afford. I don't know about you but I can't can't deny a woman or man dying from Leukemia or some other disease.

[Just_A_Guy]

I just want to note for the record that HoosierGuy has here confessed that it is possible for the evil capitalists to cease profitable activity on the grounds that they are already "making enough of a profit"

[Spartan117]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

I just want to note for the record that HoosierGuy has here confessed that it is possible for the evil capitalists to cease profitable activity on the grounds that they are already "making enough of a profit"

I have a small bit of personal experience with our current health care system and the pharmaceutical companies as well. If what you said is a private joke I apologize for jumping in but if you're comment was seriously sarcastic I would love to exchange some facts and ideas with you over this subject in a separate thread.

[Dravin]

Originally Posted by Spartan117

I have a small bit of personal experience with our current health care system and the pharmaceutical companies as well. If what you said is a private joke I apologize for jumping in but if you're comment was seriously sarcastic I would love to exchange some facts and ideas with you over this subject in a separate thread.

HoosierGuy has a less than favorable view of business, that business wouldn't pursue any and all profit seems at odds with his past voiced opinions.

[slamjet]

I blame lawyers. They're suing everything in site if a drug so much as cause a rash.

[Spartan117]

Originally Posted by Dravin

HoosierGuy has a less than favorable view of business, that business wouldn't pursue any and all profit seems at odds with his past voiced opinions.

Fair enough. I really wasn't trying to pick at something if it wasn't there, or if it didn't concern me at all. I didn't wanna step on anyone's toes either. Thank you

[Saldrin]

I blame Big Government, they are not the solution to problems, they ARE the problem!

[rameumptom]

And therein lies the problem Over regulation and law suits force companies into making decisions that can slow down the process. Government take over just would not help, but would create bigger shortages. How do I know? Just look at health care in Canada or England, where it is run by the government. Most have to wait over a year to get a cat scan or MRI. That is an accepted norm for them.

That occasionally there are shortages of medicines is often because the over regulation causes a batch to have to be rejected if it does not exactly meet the expectations of government. Over regulation can cause the following: If a medicine must have 200 mg of a certain element, but is accidentally made with 205 mg or 195 mg, then the whole batch is discarded. It isn't close enough. Or because of minor things, a factory or lab can be shut down temporarily or permanently by the government for safety factors, which affects the supply needs.

[LittleWyvern]

Originally Posted by Saldrin

I blame Big Government, they are not the solution to problems, they ARE the problem!

Although, this same problem would occur in a laissez-faire (i.e. no government) economy as well, if not more so. In a pure free market economy, the price of a commodity is... the price of the commodity, and any attempts to change the price or fix it lower would be opposed as disturbing the invisible hand of the market. So, with no government regulation, if all medicines were priced way above what anybody could reasonably afford, that would be normal. "Supply and Demand!" laissez-faire economists would argue, "The free market is at work and the price just reflects it." It's a rather utilitarian method. So I think there is some proper role here for government regulation (i.e. ensuring that there is sufficient supply by perhaps subsidizing the production of medicine, etc.) but we should be careful defining that role, even though I know it's lots more popular now-a-days to just blame everything on government programs and try to throw them out entirely.

[rameumptom]

But in a true laissez-faire free market, if one company chose to sell their product at a very high price, out of the reach of most people, you would soon see other companies providing a similar product for a much cheaper price.

This is exactly how we see it in the free markets, even with regulation getting in the way. Apple creates the IPod, IPhone, IPad, and gives them a premium price. Many purchase them, but they are out of the price range for many more. So you soon see other companies fill in at the lower rungs of the price range, selling MP3 players, Android cell phones and tablets for less. In fact, today, Amazon is bringing out a $250 tablet called the Kindle Fire.

If we didn't have all the long term government patent and copyright protections we now have, which allow some to last for decades, if not centuries, then we could see even more competition. Those drugs would drop quickly in price if a patent were to last only 3-5 years instead. And, like aspirin, would be plentiful.