It's not mitigated at all by other companies. It would be mitigated some by a non profit, medical institution, but not much.
The basic facts are economic.
Think about it like cigarettes. Back when a pack of cigarettes cost a dollar.
A reoccurring cost of $1 /day is worth ~ 365 /year, or about as much as a $7300 in the bank at 5% interest.
Every customer of a cigarette company was basicly worth, $7300 to that company. Like chattel, or human capital. Why would a cigarette company stop selling cigarettes?
Now an AIDS patient on antiretrovirals spends about $30/day, or is an asset of about $220,000 to whichever drug company has the patient. You can argue that the patent runs out after 20 years, that will change the math down to an asset value of $100,000 or so, minus overhead.
Unless the potential profit, is at least $100,000 per cured person... as a for profit corporation, operated for the benefit of its investors, it is almost illegal to for the company officers to make the cure.
Illegal? Yes, illegal. The officers of the company have a financial responsibility to maximize profits for the share holders. Curring people, and destroying the corporations revenue stream is not in line with this responsibility. So it is not going to happen, and if it did happen, the shareholders would be well within there rights to file legal claims against the officers.
So the corporations that own the patents are not going to poop in there own koy pond, but what about other companies with cheaper antiretrovirals, or even a cure?
Examine the ROI choice between developing another maintenance therapy, vs a cure. A therapy, gets maybe $100,000 through the life of a patient. A cure might get what? $5000? $10,000? Surely not $100,000. The medical insurance company executives would be rioting in the streets if they had to fork over $100,000 per person.
A very simple ROI analysis concludes that when the cost of developing a cure or a therapy... develop a therapy. For profit corporations are legally bound to do 'the right thing'.
A notes about AIDS funding: $700 million sounds like a lot. But...
it's about $2 / american. it's equivalent to a 23 day supply of antiretrovirals for the 1 million Americans with AIDS.
But it is $700 / american with aids. But it could be $2 / american who would never get aids.
Sometimes the invisible hand of the market, is all to visible, and probably not doing what is best for us.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-12-28 12:17 am (UTC)The basic facts are economic.
Think about it like cigarettes. Back when a pack of cigarettes cost a dollar.
A reoccurring cost of $1 /day is worth ~ 365 /year, or about as much as a $7300 in the bank at 5% interest.
Every customer of a cigarette company was basicly worth, $7300 to that company. Like chattel, or human capital. Why would a cigarette company stop selling cigarettes?
Now an AIDS patient on antiretrovirals spends about $30/day, or is an asset of about $220,000 to whichever drug company has the patient. You can argue that the patent runs out after 20 years, that will change the math down to an asset value of $100,000 or so, minus overhead.
Unless the potential profit, is at least $100,000 per cured person... as a for profit corporation, operated for the benefit of its investors, it is almost illegal to for the company officers to make the cure.
Illegal? Yes, illegal. The officers of the company have a financial responsibility to maximize profits for the share holders. Curring people, and destroying the corporations revenue stream is not in line with
this responsibility. So it is not going to happen, and if it did happen, the shareholders would be well within there rights to file legal claims against the officers.
So the corporations that own the patents are not going to poop in there own koy pond, but what about other companies with cheaper antiretrovirals, or even a cure?
Examine the ROI choice between developing another maintenance therapy, vs a cure. A therapy, gets maybe $100,000 through the life of a patient. A cure might get what? $5000? $10,000? Surely not $100,000. The medical insurance company executives would be rioting in the streets if they had to fork over $100,000 per person.
A very simple ROI analysis concludes that when the cost of developing a cure or a therapy... develop a therapy. For profit corporations are legally bound to do 'the right thing'.
A notes about AIDS funding:
$700 million sounds like a lot.
But...
it's about $2 / american.
it's equivalent to a 23 day supply of antiretrovirals for the 1 million Americans with AIDS.
But it is $700 / american with aids.
But it could be $2 / american who would never get aids.
Sometimes the invisible hand of the market, is all to visible, and probably not doing what is best for us.