> existing drug companies have no real incentive to do serious innovation
This is just massively ignorant. Who do you think funds drug research now? Not just the initial 'this substance looks kind of interesting', but 'we have to get this specific drug from the concept stage through FDA approval'.
The NIH, nonprofit fundraising organizations like The Jimmy Fund, small companies like Advanced Cell Technology, and Venture Capital to biotech startups. Finally-- existing large drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Novartis; who issue grants, own large research labs and acquire startups much like IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft.
That study won't result in technological innovation. That study will result in health insurance policies more likely to cover sleeping pills. Funded by Merck and Sanofi-Aventis, who sell sleeping pills.
> existing large drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Novartis
OK, you aren't as dumb as I thought you were. Some people claim that drug companies do no research, the public sector does all of it, and Big Pharma (a big 'I'm-a-moron' catchphrase if I've ever heard one) steals or suppresses everything it can get its hands on.
> But the last are heavily biased.
Every field has its publication bias. Frankly, results announcing new things and going new places are more interesting than results confirming what we know or saying that the new thing isn't as interesting as we'd hoped after all. What's worse is trying to get science news from non-specialized news sources, like CNN or Fox. You might as well ask an overexcited six-year-old what's in the dark closet.
Your sleeping pill study isn't even in the running for the thing most wrong with how we research and produce drugs in this country, let alone with how terribly, criminally negligent the FDA is in prosecuting the crazies who are bringing crap like reiki and homeopathy into hospitals and university programs (quackademic medicine).
I admit I exaggerated, the point I wanted to make in the post that got downvoted was that health insurance doesn't reduce the costs of healthcare. Health insurance is a way to share the costs, that's it. Real cost reduction comes from improved technologies, healthier environments, and healthier behavior.
I'm not saying there aren't other major issues with regards to the FDA and the expense and politics surrounding clinical trials, just that existing large companies are probably not going to innovate with substantially more success than a healthy startup and academic ecosystem.
This is just massively ignorant. Who do you think funds drug research now? Not just the initial 'this substance looks kind of interesting', but 'we have to get this specific drug from the concept stage through FDA approval'.