1. Novartis to pay $678 to settle kickback claims — PhRMA sues Minnesota over insulin pricing law — Amgen Enbrel patents to be upheld through 2029 — See more on our front page news Stay updated with the latest pharma-related coronavirus news on our new page
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Do you have 7 minutes to fill out a quick survey about ordering food for work? You’ll be entered into a raffle to win a $100 Amazon.com gift card as a thank you for your time. click here
    Dismiss Notice

We can Use Blockchain Technology to Mitigate the Healthcare Cost Crisis!

Discussion in 'The Politics of Healthcare' started by daviduc, Feb 4, 2018 at 12:01 AM.

  1. daviduc

    daviduc new user

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the most part, it's not a problem with health insurance, since premiums are regulated fairly on what consumers are experiencing in the marketplace on price. In fact, some insurers are reaching down to medical providers on care to control to a certain extent the price problem but drug companies are still largely out of reach. If we work backwards on the drug price problem and assume it can be sold on blockchain, then a token is a promise to a unit of drug, a commodity. Token price is obviously affected by many factors, the most important being the current state of drug development, i.e. public discovery and research, company R&D, preclinical research, clinical research, FDA review, and FDA post-market release and regulatory review. Global price discovery is a powerful force that finds, to the extent of the market size, true value. If the government required drug companies to create a commodity token for a drug from company R&D to market release, than it would significantly mitigate issues with drug and/or investment companies acquiring drug companies, which forces drug price increases. The problem today is that mergers and acquisitions of drug companies has succumbed to Wall Street's appetite of greed and profit (i.e. see Valeant Pharmaceuticals), causing massive buyout costs that in turn are passed to patients that need these drugs at raised prices that insurance companies must bear. So on this proposal, investors and patients around the globe can buy the tokens of these promising drugs early in it's lifecycle and regulators can enforce the contract between the token holder and the drug company, irregardless of the current owner. Buyouts will take into account the token float in any buyout, since that must be accounted for in determining how effective a price increase would be.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    So you are proposing that when drugs are in the development stage, people could purchase a token that entitles them to x amount of the drug if and when it goes on the market. So it would be somewhat like a futures contract but mediated by the blockchain?
     
    daviduc likes this.
  3. daviduc

    daviduc new user

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that is a fair characterization, however, the proposal would allow for continuous investment of a cryptographic token, very much like a commodity but without all the constraints and requirements for issuance on traditional fiat-based exchanges such as CME. Continuous since investment can occur at any point in the lifecycle of drug development. Also, it differs in that derivatives are not required to be a time expiring contract and a token can, at first, represent a set amount of a drug, enforced by FDA (i.e. I know, easier to say than do) to be good at market release. Argument for FDA is really an argument for government controls on healthcare costs. I believe, enforcement would have costs but much less than any other government price controls that I'm sure pharmas would not like. The intent is to dissuade this pump and dump M&A activity on drug companies by Wall Street