I read an interesting article in "The New Yorker" magazine, "The Treatment", by Malcolm Gladwell.
In it he talks about two approaches to finding a working cancer drug: "rational design" and "mass screening".
The first is the norm and involves starting with the disease and working backward to find or create a drug. The second starts with a drug candidate then look for a disease it might combat.
Two radically different approaches and I am interested if you can see how the ideas in the article might apply to question of 'how higher quality can lead to lower costs' or a discussion along that line.
The article can be found at:
Regardless of the approach a pharmaceutical company employs - either the rational design or the mass screening - in finding a working cancer drug from its research and development department to market, the point of the process is to get to the market fastest. Nevertheless, if this goal becomes the sole driving force of the whole process, it is highly likely that a drug company will incur more costs - it has to try as many possibilities as possible within a limited span of time to eliminate as many possibilities and come up with the one working cancer drug or two the fastest.
On the other hand, the company which also takes into account the quality of its ...
The expert determines how higher quality can lead to lower costs using Malcolm Gladwell articles.