Let me stop you right there (at 1:20 minutes). Patents are no measure of progress for the U.S. We have lowered the bar on what is "Patentable" so much that now even concepts are awarded patents. For example, the Electric Vehicle was delayed by 17 years because the "Concept" of a large-frame NiMH battery used in a vehicle was part of the Ovonics patent ( stolen by GM, and sold to Texaco ) prevented anyone else from using that type of battery in large-frame size. Hence, Toyota had to use relatively small batteries in it's Prius in 1999. Same for the patent Apple had on the "look" of it's IPhone. Or the "Netflix List" patent, which patented the IDEA of a queu (spelling?) or "waiting list" when applied to a list of things you wanted to order next! Why? Because patents are a money-maker for the U.S. and because huge businesses make more money to the detriment of start-ups. Start-ups don't have the money needed to buy Congressmen and Presidents.
Even if you concede the point that patents aren't good measures of productivity or innovation (with the few anecdotes that you've provided) you can't refute the evidence that clinical trials have increased with the funding. The number of drugs entering Phase 2 and onwards increases along with the market cap in the US.
The world class healthcare innovations,equipment and procedures are not readily available to the bottom half and the ones down lower can suffer,go bankrupt and or die.Wonderful healthcare for the well connected and the well to do.
7 років тому+3
Actually, the rate of innovation PER CAPITA of the US is similar to other countries with socialized healthcare (Germany for example).
All I'm taking from your sources is that other countries are publishing more research articles, but when it comes to innovation, which is much more important than just simple peer reviewed research and scientific journals, the US still dominates its competition, so I really don't understand what your point is.
A great innovation would be when big pharma lowers drug cost so that the poor could afford them. I work in healthcare, and I have met many patients who are forced to choose between food and medications.
So companies who invested billions of dollars to make these drugs, who now have to recover said costs thanks to the ridiculous patent laws in the US that drive up the costs of innovation and prevent smaller companies from making cheaper generic versions, should not be allowed to recoup said costs? Many drug companies in Germany have pulled their drugs from the market because of laws like these that prevent them from recovering their costs, meaning the citizens of Germany simply don't have access to them period, which does them vastly more harm. www.ft.com/content/b6275c5e-dd8c-11e2-892b-00144feab7de www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/germany-s-drug-pricing-amnesty-reset-risks-pharma-backlash
Could you please do a video on the implications of big tech companies such as Apple, and companies such as Amazon, JP Morgan, and Berkshire Hathaway getting involved in healthcare? What do they stand to profit and how is this in turn beneficial to their employers. How does it effect the current health infrastructure?
I cannot find if you've done any shows on the concept of Adverse Childhood Experience and its relation to health. Dr. Nadine Burke Harris and others suggest the ACE score developed by the CDC and Kaiser Premenente gives intriguing clues into the health of people who experienced trauma as children. If you have done such an episode, please direct me to it. If you have not, please consider the topic.
I think there's confusion as to what constitutes "innovation" as discussed in the video. The study was talking about ideas that are new. This does not mean that these new ideas are necessarily better for patients as much as just cost savers for pharmaceutical companies.
Another great video... other than the comments on "Robust IP system" (Robust for patent trolls and defensive patents, yes. Helpful to innovators, not so much).
Quick question why does UA-cam not like to offer certain advertisers on your show? As your final scene you offer up that caveat, while promoting Healthcare Triage. You seem not to be controversial.
USA drug trails have a reputation of being unethical in other countries; as of the use of placebos of life threatening diseases. I know the NHS has to redo the trails to check if they work better than normal treatments.
You start to talk about innovation not being tied to the type of system being used and attempt to refute the notion that innovation comes regardless of what kind of system (such as Medicare or private funds) is being used, but *why are you using an equivocation to do so?* The elderly are not synonymous with Medicare, and the fact that there is innovation in medicine for the elderly does not address the critique of socialized medicine not spurring innovation.
He sorta does that. He supports single payer healthcare iirc but he also wants people to know that doing so will mean less capital for the entire world to fund biotech and pharmaceutical ventures. It's a tough choice. Americans eat the damage in terms of healthcare while the international community as a whole benefits... man, I don't know what to think.
The purpose of a healthcare system is to... provide healthcare. The US healthcare system fails not because of a lack of talent or ingenuity or passion but simply because it fails to transform the promise that comes from medical research (research that is largely publicly funded) into accessible healthcare to the average person. It's no good at all to be told that a new lifesaving drug has just come onto the market if you'll never be able to afford even the first dose. Innovation is great, but less "innovative" healthcare systems routinely have better results at lower cost because thy focus on the actual healthcare side of healthcare.
"The purpose of a food system is to provide food. The American food system is a failure because it fails to make filet mignon accessible to the average person." HURR
I mean we only lead the world in cancer survival and have more individual patents per-capita than any other industrialized nation, with 63% of all drugs and technology being US made. www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/13/why-the-us-has-better-cancer-survival-rates-than-the-rest-of-the-world/#95576974b674 www.quora.com/What-countries-have-lead-the-world-in-medical-research-and-innovation-during-the-time-period-between-1995-and-2014
There are so many white knight pointing fingers at US healthcare system without understanding sufficient basic information. martin shkreli could have been painted better if otherwise.
@@trinathigapanich7792 sufficient basic information?? like what? like the diabetic people who have been MURDERED because of the fully artificial spike in insulin prices?? what basic information justifies that, you fucking tool
@@MK.5198 you have a point. Indeed i am a fool, thanks for pointing that out, turns out i am the one who have insufficient knowledge. I will make sure i dont opiniate unsupported claim in the future, especially because this is a matter of life an death. I am truly ashamed.
I propose abolishing the FDA. We have private certification independent companies like Underwriter Laboratories for all sorts of consumer products. Heck, UL is even responsible for the industry standards in your home's wiring. Why not apply this same model to medicine? It would make innovation much faster, less expensive, and give smaller companies a chance in the market without the FDA bureaucracy keeping them out.
Qrow Branwen The FDA is a special case of stupid. Essentially all of their regulations only exist in order to cover their back so they don't get the backlash when a drug goes bad but passes inspection. Primarily it should be blamed on the companies that put the drug to market in the first place. Average time for drugs to come to market doubled since the inception of the FDA, greatly increasing the upfront costs to even create new treatments. Also noted is that many hospitals are artificial local monopolies due to government regulation through certificate-of-need laws. That just multiplies the problem, along with disincentivising upfront costs shown to consumers of procedures through insurance plans. It's a miracle that the US. is still the leader in innovation in the healthcare sector considering that, but its mostly due to the even worse regulations in other countries.
There's a difference between reducing FDA red tape to roll out needed competitive treatments and returning to The Jungle. It's much much much more difficult to ensure the safety of pharmaceuticals than it is to ensure best practices for electronics and other consumer products. For example, UL can set standards and check those standards efficiently. Drug production really doesn't have "standards" so much as it necessitates that it undergo trials showing its effectiveness (easy enough) and doesn't harm people in significant ways (difficult).
Inconspicuous Bear Wrestler. Oh my god, I cannot stand when people cite The Jungle. That was a fictional story published in a socialist magazine. Seriously, you make yourself look as stupid as someone citing Harry Potter for educational policy.
www.libertariannews.org/2012/11/15/meat-packing-lies-exposing-the-fiction-of-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle/ A 1906 report by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.” Seriously, do not ever cite The Jungle ever again.
I mean, sure, if you want to just talk about The Jungle. As a piece of muckraking journalism, it's seminal. Was it fully truthful? Not in the findings of the federal government. But even in from your source, it cites exactly what you've got there. That the *severest* allegations were "intentionally misleading and false" (which I could bash for being a quote from the industry itself). However, the federal government found copious amounts of evidence to support many of Sinclair's claims even with the knowledge that inspectors were coming.
Let me stop you right there (at 1:20 minutes).
Patents are no measure of progress for the U.S. We have lowered the bar on what is "Patentable" so much that now even concepts are awarded patents. For example, the Electric Vehicle was delayed by 17 years because the "Concept" of a large-frame NiMH battery used in a vehicle was part of the Ovonics patent ( stolen by GM, and sold to Texaco ) prevented anyone else from using that type of battery in large-frame size. Hence, Toyota had to use relatively small batteries in it's Prius in 1999.
Same for the patent Apple had on the "look" of it's IPhone. Or the "Netflix List" patent, which patented the IDEA of a queu (spelling?) or "waiting list" when applied to a list of things you wanted to order next!
Why? Because patents are a money-maker for the U.S. and because huge businesses make more money to the detriment of start-ups. Start-ups don't have the money needed to buy Congressmen and Presidents.
Even if you concede the point that patents aren't good measures of productivity or innovation (with the few anecdotes that you've provided) you can't refute the evidence that clinical trials have increased with the funding. The number of drugs entering Phase 2 and onwards increases along with the market cap in the US.
I'm sad no podcast! But I love when new videos come out, this is one of the few channels I watch as SOON as they are posted. Thank you!
If you can't afford it, it doesn't matter if a new drug or device is out. Existence alone does not cure.
Umm...didn't Healthcare Triage expire 2 months ago? (10/01/17) Does this mean it's only half effective as before?
Philip Hochendoner Not half, maybe just 98% less effective than before the expiration date. (As a former pharmacy tech, I lol’ed. Good one!)
Is that a reference to CHIP funding expiring?
The world class healthcare innovations,equipment and procedures are not readily available to the bottom half and the ones down lower can suffer,go bankrupt and or die.Wonderful healthcare for the well connected and the well to do.
Actually, the rate of innovation PER CAPITA of the US is similar to other countries with socialized healthcare (Germany for example).
u got a link to your source?
All I'm taking from your sources is that other countries are publishing more research articles, but when it comes to innovation, which is much more important than just simple peer reviewed research and scientific journals, the US still dominates its competition, so I really don't understand what your point is.
A great innovation would be when big pharma lowers drug cost so that the poor could afford them.
I work in healthcare, and I have met many patients who are forced to choose between food and medications.
You should probably refer your patients to your state's medicaid program.
So companies who invested billions of dollars to make these drugs, who now have to recover said costs thanks to the ridiculous patent laws in the US that drive up the costs of innovation and prevent smaller companies from making cheaper generic versions, should not be allowed to recoup said costs? Many drug companies in Germany have pulled their drugs from the market because of laws like these that prevent them from recovering their costs, meaning the citizens of Germany simply don't have access to them period, which does them vastly more harm.
www.ft.com/content/b6275c5e-dd8c-11e2-892b-00144feab7de
www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/germany-s-drug-pricing-amnesty-reset-risks-pharma-backlash
great pronunciation of my last name XD.
Could you please do a video on the implications of big tech companies such as Apple, and companies such as Amazon, JP Morgan, and Berkshire Hathaway getting involved in healthcare? What do they stand to profit and how is this in turn beneficial to their employers. How does it effect the current health infrastructure?
Oh, we're innovative as hell. That's why health outcomes in the U.S. rank 51st in the industrialized world, behind Chile and Cuba.
I cannot find if you've done any shows on the concept of Adverse Childhood Experience and its relation to health. Dr. Nadine Burke Harris and others suggest the ACE score developed by the CDC and Kaiser Premenente gives intriguing clues into the health of people who experienced trauma as children. If you have done such an episode, please direct me to it. If you have not, please consider the topic.
Y3
4:58 "Despite traditional Medicare (gov't program), few argue there's no innovation for elderly healthcare" BINGO!!!
I think there's confusion as to what constitutes "innovation" as discussed in the video.
The study was talking about ideas that are new. This does not mean that these new ideas are necessarily better for patients as much as just cost savers for pharmaceutical companies.
Thanks for the episode!
Another great video... other than the comments on "Robust IP system" (Robust for patent trolls and defensive patents, yes. Helpful to innovators, not so much).
What happened to the sound and lighting during the patreon notice? It's clearly very different then the rest of the video. still, great stuff tho
Because it's probably old footage that's just being reused.
It’s sad that our health is so easily broken down into monetary values. We need innovation in the power structures to increase innovations in health.
Perhaps countries should work together to spur innovation in healthcare rather than take on the burdensome costs of trying to do it all ourselves.
But why?
💚
In this unnatural world no higher man creative invective man will come from us any more.
Wait, isn't this debate over "innovation" usually related to the issue of patents? Isn't that the big controversial question?
Quick question why does UA-cam not like to offer certain advertisers on your show? As your final scene you offer up that caveat, while promoting Healthcare Triage.
You seem not to be controversial.
USA drug trails have a reputation of being unethical in other countries; as of the use of placebos of life threatening diseases. I know the NHS has to redo the trails to check if they work better than normal treatments.
Caring and a strong group working for are own makes strong creative people. You coulda cured cancer but I like to cause it.
Huh?
Lack of a clear conclusion lends to much confusion.
"Robust intellectual property laws."
You start to talk about innovation not being tied to the type of system being used and attempt to refute the notion that innovation comes regardless of what kind of system (such as Medicare or private funds) is being used, but *why are you using an equivocation to do so?* The elderly are not synonymous with Medicare, and the fact that there is innovation in medicine for the elderly does not address the critique of socialized medicine not spurring innovation.
He sorta does that. He supports single payer healthcare iirc but he also wants people to know that doing so will mean less capital for the entire world to fund biotech and pharmaceutical ventures. It's a tough choice. Americans eat the damage in terms of healthcare while the international community as a whole benefits... man, I don't know what to think.
The purpose of a healthcare system is to... provide healthcare. The US healthcare system fails not because of a lack of talent or ingenuity or passion but simply because it fails to transform the promise that comes from medical research (research that is largely publicly funded) into accessible healthcare to the average person. It's no good at all to be told that a new lifesaving drug has just come onto the market if you'll never be able to afford even the first dose.
Innovation is great, but less "innovative" healthcare systems routinely have better results at lower cost because thy focus on the actual healthcare side of healthcare.
"The purpose of a food system is to provide food. The American food system is a failure because it fails to make filet mignon accessible to the average person."
HURR
>comparing gourmet food to a lifesaving drug
> Using special pleading to suggest that drugs that save lives are any different in this conversation.
Innovation pays off in the long run. One lifesaving drug or procedure is one step closer to another one.
How are drugs that save lives not different? Literally one is the difference between life and death for a person and the other is luxury.
Sure, the US is innovating in healthcare tech and new treatments, but are we actually innovating healthcare itself? No.
I mean we only lead the world in cancer survival and have more individual patents per-capita than any other industrialized nation, with 63% of all drugs and technology being US made.
www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/13/why-the-us-has-better-cancer-survival-rates-than-the-rest-of-the-world/#95576974b674
www.quora.com/What-countries-have-lead-the-world-in-medical-research-and-innovation-during-the-time-period-between-1995-and-2014
There are so many white knight pointing fingers at US healthcare system without understanding sufficient basic information. martin shkreli could have been painted better if otherwise.
@@trinathigapanich7792 sufficient basic information?? like what? like the diabetic people who have been MURDERED because of the fully artificial spike in insulin prices?? what basic information justifies that, you fucking tool
@@MK.5198 you have a point. Indeed i am a fool, thanks for pointing that out, turns out i am the one who have insufficient knowledge. I will make sure i dont opiniate unsupported claim in the future, especially because this is a matter of life an death. I am truly ashamed.
I propose abolishing the FDA. We have private certification independent companies like Underwriter Laboratories for all sorts of consumer products. Heck, UL is even responsible for the industry standards in your home's wiring.
Why not apply this same model to medicine? It would make innovation much faster, less expensive, and give smaller companies a chance in the market without the FDA bureaucracy keeping them out.
Qrow Branwen The FDA is a special case of stupid. Essentially all of their regulations only exist in order to cover their back so they don't get the backlash when a drug goes bad but passes inspection. Primarily it should be blamed on the companies that put the drug to market in the first place. Average time for drugs to come to market doubled since the inception of the FDA, greatly increasing the upfront costs to even create new treatments.
Also noted is that many hospitals are artificial local monopolies due to government regulation through certificate-of-need laws. That just multiplies the problem, along with disincentivising upfront costs shown to consumers of procedures through insurance plans.
It's a miracle that the US. is still the leader in innovation in the healthcare sector considering that, but its mostly due to the even worse regulations in other countries.
There's a difference between reducing FDA red tape to roll out needed competitive treatments and returning to The Jungle. It's much much much more difficult to ensure the safety of pharmaceuticals than it is to ensure best practices for electronics and other consumer products. For example, UL can set standards and check those standards efficiently. Drug production really doesn't have "standards" so much as it necessitates that it undergo trials showing its effectiveness (easy enough) and doesn't harm people in significant ways (difficult).
Inconspicuous Bear Wrestler.
Oh my god, I cannot stand when people cite The Jungle. That was a fictional story published in a socialist magazine. Seriously, you make yourself look as stupid as someone citing Harry Potter for educational policy.
www.libertariannews.org/2012/11/15/meat-packing-lies-exposing-the-fiction-of-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle/
A 1906 report by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.”
Seriously, do not ever cite The Jungle ever again.
I mean, sure, if you want to just talk about The Jungle. As a piece of muckraking journalism, it's seminal. Was it fully truthful? Not in the findings of the federal government. But even in from your source, it cites exactly what you've got there. That the *severest* allegations were "intentionally misleading and false" (which I could bash for being a quote from the industry itself). However, the federal government found copious amounts of evidence to support many of Sinclair's claims even with the knowledge that inspectors were coming.