Innovatsioonist ravimitööstuses ehk miks ravimid on USAs kallimad kui Euroopas

Megan McArdle on viimased paar päeva lahanud ravimite maksumuse probleemi USA's ning ühtlasi selgitanud, miks Euroopas ja isegi Kanadas on mitmete ravimite hinnad olulisemalt madalamad (riiklik ravikindlustus ostab suuri koguseid madala hinnaga) sellest, mis nad on USA's ja miks ameeriklastel ei tasu unistada teiste riikide lähenemisest (lämmataks innovatsiooni sektoris) või proovida kõrgemat hinda teistelt nõuda (lõppeks patendikaitse kaotamisega ja loaga kohalike tootjatel odavalt koopiaid teha).

Ühtlasi selgitab Megan, miks alusuuringud on vaid üks samm - sealjuures pigem üks väike samme - protsessis, mille lõplik tulemus on ohutu medikament:

Many people are holding out the hope that the government can somehow substitute for the pharmas, bolstered by the ludicrous claim that the government really discovers all the drugs. This is arrant nonsense; government-funded research discovers targets that might someday turn into drugs, if the Big Pharma chemists can: find a molecule synthesis can be economically mass produced; keep the molecule from killing rats, mice, dogs, or humans; get the molecule into a form that does not have to be directly injected into the bloodstream; tweak the molecule so that the liver doesn't immediately chew it into pieces that no longer affect your target; and shepherd the entire thing through years of clinical trials. That's just off the top of my head; research chemists will undoubtedly have more.

Megan annab ka tugev löögi nende inimeste mõttemaailmale, kes arvavad, et innovatsiooniga võiks tegeleda avalik sektor selle asemel, et "pahadel kapitalistidel" meid kõiki koorida:

There is no evidence of a nationalized industry that consistently does cost effective innovation. Yes, you have a list of things invented by the government--but that number is a small fraction of a fraction of one percent of the number of things in the private sector. If the universe of products were your house, the government would have invented one washer inside the tap of your bathroom sink; the private sector would have developed every other thing you use. Even where the government is given credit for "inventing" something, such as DARPANet's invention of the internet; it turns out that 99% of the process of actually turning it into a product that was useful to end-consumers was handled by private actors, most of them corporations like Netscape, Microsoft, and AOL.

This is why when you start to make a list of all the state-run economies that have produced large numbers of innovative products with a high level of consumer satisfaction, you have to throw your privately manufactured gel pen aside in disgust. For whatever reason, the government is just not good at producing innovation.

Mul on innovatsiooni defitsiidi kohta avalikus sektoris tekkinud oma teooria, millest kirjutasin isegi ühe arvamusloo, mis kahjuks avaldamist ei leidnud, sest väidetavalt olevat teema olnud liiga spetsiifiline väljaande jaoks. Ok, nende valik, kuid kahjuks ei lähe mulle mingi üldise targutamise või mulina kirjutamine eriti korda, seega parem mitte kirjutada. Omal ajal oli plaanis isegi teine osa kirjutada avaliku sektori innovatsiooni võimalustest, kuid mulle tundub, et Eestis selle teema vastu lihtsalt huvi puudub või ma pole suutnud veel huvitatud inimesi leida.

Tulles tagasi Megani juurde, siis koondaks tema ravimitööstust käsitlevad postitused ilusti kokku siia lõppu teemast huvitatuile:

• How profitable is Pharma?
• Fantasy pharma
• Pharmaceuticals: understanding your solution set
• Why can't we just fund R&D from pharmaceutical advertising budgets?
• Prophets of profit
• Supply meet demand. Demand meet supply.