Why it doesn't make sense to cure diseases...

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Now let me add a disclaimer here: This post and discussion is in no way to offend or insult ANYONE who has a serious and/or chronic condition that requires treatment. Also, it is not my personal belief that finding cures for diseases and improving people's lives is a bad thing.

Read on for more clarification....

I was reading a book heavy on biotechnology issues (Think gene therapy, stem cell research, etc.) and I got to thinking about a lot of different things.

Consider the number of diseases/conditions which have no cure: AIDS, many forms of Cancer, MS, Cystic Fibrosis, Lou Gherig's disease, Alzheimers, Diabetes.

These are also diseases that have millions of research dollars poured into them every day.

But economically speaking, it doesn't make sense to cure diseases. Pharmaceutical companies are not in the business of helping people live healthier lives they are in the business of making money, period.

I believe it's more profitable to keep people in treatment that to straight up cure them. Think about it: The health industry makes money off of repeated doctors visits, required medications for treatment and specialized treatments (chemotherapy, etc.). If you were out and out cured and so no longer required any of this (expect perhaps one visit a year for follow up), that's a lot of money walking out the door.

Pharmaceutical companies know this and so curing you isn't their top priority. They'd rather develop a drug that controls your symptoms and that you need to take for the rest of your life than a flat out cure. Prescription refills are a great way to drive repeat business. A cure isn't.

Cures are elusive things. There are many conditions that don't have a flat cure. Is this because there isn't one that exists or because researchers aren't all the interested in finding it? A lot of medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies. Which do you think will work better for them: A one shot cure or a treatment they could keep you on (and thus keep profiting from) for years?

Unfortunately the model shows no signs of changing anytime soon and while it's fun to say I think I'll see AIDS cured in my lifetime (I'm in my late 20s) there's also a very realistic chance I won't see that happen unless some drastic changes happen with regards to how medicines are developed.

[HYHYBT]

That's the great thing about patent protection: sure, it makes modern medicine expensive, but it *is* an incentive to come up with something better. For instance, suppose they did come up with a permanent, safe cure for diabetes. They could charge enough for it to cover several years of insulin, testing, etc., get the money up front instead of over time, and even if insurance companies wouldn't cover it, enough people would be willing to pay for it themselves to make it worthwhile, at least until the patent ran out. And by then they'll probably have come up with something else.

Edit: The other thing is, many such conditions might be more easily prevented with a vaccine of some kind than cured. Suppose they had a very save, very effective vaccine for AIDS, for instance. How much could they charge for it? Not as much as the cost of a lifetime's treatment for the disease, but then, the market is a lot larger. There are more people who might catch it than who actually do. And there are a lot who would take the vaccine but couldn't get the ongoing treatment: you can bet that agencies, charities, etc would jump on it to pass along to the poor, here and especially in Africa. All for a lot more money than could ever be spent on condoms. And, of course, fewer people using condoms (because they were mostly afraid of AIDS) means more transmission of other STDs, which means more people paying to treat them and more buying vaccines for them once they become available.

[Vagabond]

I can say I'm almost torn on this issue.

1. Companies are now more in the business of making money than actually curing, but that doesn't explain the millions being spent on the research for cures. And who is doing what research? I would think doctors and research scientists are in it for the prestige of finding a cure, and for the love of research. Business profit companies are in it for the money.

2. Cures are good. Excellent PR. And think, polio is pretty much eradicated in the Western World. That is accepted as an effective vaccine. Would everyone have gotten polio? Probably not, but almost everyone gets treated for it. If they did come out with a vaccine for AIDS. I would hazard that while not 99% of the population would have contracted it, at least 99% would get vaccinated for it.

3. Chances are if you live long enough, you'll get some other health problem, which you'll end up paying the Pharmaceutical company for eventually.

[crashhelmet]

This is one of the biggest reasons why I'm against meds for behavioral disorders. In most cases, they don't do anything to help the patient and essentially create a source of life-long income for the prescribing psychiatrist.

Psychiatrists make more money from 15 minute sessions than they do from hour long sessions. Why spend an hour trying to help their patient when they can see 4 patients in that time and put them all on meds to tie them over until they off themselves or get committed. New house, car, and 23 year old wife all thanks to the pharmaceutical companies.

CH

[Boozy]

But economically speaking, it doesn't make sense to cure diseases. Pharmaceutical companies are not in the business of helping people live healthier lives they are in the business of making money, period.

What you're saying is partially true, but you also have to remember that a "cure" will demand a higher price than a "treatment".

My migraine medication costs me about $150 a month (much of which is covered by insurance, thankfully). How much would I pay for one pill or one course of treatment that cured my condition? How much would my insurance company pay? Probably substantially more than $150.

Also keep in mind that pharmaceutical companies eventually lose their patents and lower-priced, competing generics will enter the market. Even keeping a patient on long-term treatment doesn't necessarily mean that one specific company will retain their business for that entire time.

Long story short: People will pay for cures. And when there's a market for something, someone out there is trying to make it and sell it. Period.

[Bandit]

I can speak to this on a first-hand basis.

I have Lupus. When it flairs up, I get prescribed an ointment for the skin blemishes that is 1/2 the size of a tube of toothpaste, but would cost $200/tube if I had to pay for it out of my pocket.

That's a treatment of the symptoms, and not looking for anything more than that.

Fuck that shit.

I'd rather have that money to help pay for more non-processed food and go to something more long-term than just making me look better.

Like something that might actually help me see the next decade.

But that is the way of Big Pharma - it's more money to make a drugs to both prevent a pregnancy and make a guy hard than to do the research to prevent/cure the genetic stuff.

B

[jackfaire]

But that is the way of Big Pharma - it's more money to make a drugs to both prevent a pregnancy and make a guy hard than to do the research to prevent/cure the genetic stuff.

B

Uhm actually Viagra was a byproduct of heart disease research. Drugs that are marketed and sold are sometimes the byproduct of research to Prevent/cure something else.

http://www.mindconnection.com/librar...raforwomen.htm

[BlaqueKatt]

But that is the way of Big Pharma - it's more money to make a drugs to both prevent a pregnancy

yup and what do doctors prescribe for PCOS and endometriosis-that's right birth control pills-rather than actually treat the disease or try to find what's causing it-just treat the symptoms.

Currently I'm having a bout of horribly irregular cycles(as in I can get my period 3 times in a month right now, and then go 5 months without it-it's great really)-rather than try to find out why, the only thing my doctor offered was to put me on birth control.* Great I'm almost 35 and a smoker, they can also put me on blood thinners to prevent the stroke I'm at higher risk for due to those factors, and some other medication because I get severe PMDD when on hormonal birth control-so that would be three pills I'd get to take at least daily and still no idea what's wrong with me...um no thanks....

*reason given was-"there's so many things that can cause it it may take weeks of testing, if we can even find the cause-this would clear it up right away" Great I've got an incredibly lazy doctor.....

[HYHYBT]

Uhm actually Viagra was a byproduct of heart disease research.

And Minoxodil was for, I think, high blood pressure. The patients started growing hairier, so...