Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my National Health Service:



But in all seriousness, yes it sucks that the drug companies charge the earth. But then again, no-one said that they had to exist for altruistic purposes.

Pretty disgusting, but who else is going to provide at a lower price?

First up against the wall in my new world order...

It seems like the Patent law applying to drugs is the lynchpin in this crooked system.

Seriously though, what are your politicians doing about this?

Like a lot of things, there's some truth to that, but also a lot of misleading stuff.

First off, the idea that no pharmacuetical company would try to develope a cure for diabetes or cancer because treatement is profitible assumes that all companies are making money off of treatment. Even if they were, 100% of the cure market for 20 years is a bigger cake than 10% of the treatment market. Collusion may be a factor, but 10 actors is a lot to get to collude quietly and effectively.

I'd be interested to see if the money spent buying research done in academia counts toward the R&D budget. That might alter the facts a bit.

Where things are genuinely troubling is when you look at the time, enegery, and money spent getting people to buy the drugs. Keep in mind that nobody (or hardly anybody), pays full retail for restless leg meds. They have insurance, and pay a co-pay. That's why drug advertising is so effective: it doesn't really force a person to pay the sticker price, only the down payment, and either an insurance company or the government picks up the rest.

As always, the problem here is the fact that we have the worst combination of free market and command ecnomies in the health industry. When one actor (the federal government) essentially sets prices (by setting medicare allowances) there isn't a free market. But everybody else has to act like it is.

Developing drugs (especially for use on humans) is a costly undertaking. The newer drugs tend to have a higher success/failure development rate, but they cost more to develop.

I have heard that drugs companies will make minor changes to a drug in order to keep the patent/etc on it current so other companies cannot use it, which is a bit of a con.

Well, if they change the drug, they get a new patent, but the original patent will still expire. You just have the exclusive rights to sell the "new" drug. Generics can go nuts.

The other question I have about this chart is that it shows that marketing costs twice of what R&D does. Is that high for an industry? I mean, it seems bad, but it's really a non-sequitor. I'm sure the auto industry spends more on ads than on R&D. So, while it seems outrageous, it may not be.

Polonius wrote:Well, if they change the drug, they get a new patent, but the original patent will still expire. You just have the exclusive rights to sell the "new" drug. Generics can go nuts.

The way I remember it being explained to me is that the alterations are placed on the existing patent, thus extending it. I may be mis-remembering it as it was in a lecture on drug manufacture some time ago

I'm not an expert on IP, but the underlying, original patent will expire. Now, doctors can still tell patients that the "new" drug is "better", and only prescribe it, thus denying them access to a generic.

Each pill costs twenty cents to manufacture...except the first one. The first one cost 30 million (at least). Bringing a new medication from research through trials and testing to the market costs a boatload of cash.

Ahtman wrote:Each pill costs twenty cents to manufacture...except the first one. The first one cost 30 million (at least). Bringing a new medication from research through trials and testing to the market costs a boatload of cash.

Not including the three or four other 30 million dollar pills that never amounted to a commercially viable product?

LordofHats wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Each pill costs twenty cents to manufacture...except the first one. The first one cost 30 million (at least). Bringing a new medication from research through trials and testing to the market costs a boatload of cash.

Not including the three or four other 30 million dollar pills that never amounted to a commercially viable product?

Sure. To be clear I'm not trying to defend all of the pharmaceutical industries (I'm not calling it big pharma) practices or pricing, but the first part on cost doesn't give a full picture of what the actual costs are.

I had a class with a teacher who work in pharm last semester. She would not stop talking about the cost of developing drugs, why they cost so much, how the government handles it etc. Granted, it was a very informative class. The only science they made me take I didn't hate so far

Remember, the ancestors of Big Pharma are the same criminals who started out importing Heroin and Morphine into the pre-revolution Colonies. They're still the same snake-oil salesmen. If they really spent so much time and money developing these poisons, then why do they have so many side effects, many of which are worse than the ailment that they allegedly treat?

warpcrafter wrote:Remember, the ancestors of Big Pharma are the same criminals who started out importing Heroin and Morphine into the pre-revolution Colonies. They're still the same snake-oil salesmen. If they really spent so much time and money developing these poisons, then why do they have so many side effects, many of which are worse than the ailment that they allegedly treat?

Wow, just wow. In the words of the immortal bard:

warpcrafter wrote:Remember, the ancestors of Big Pharma are the same criminals who started out importing Heroin and Morphine into the pre-revolution Colonies. They're still the same snake-oil salesmen. If they really spent so much time and money developing these poisons, then why do they have so many side effects, many of which are worse than the ailment that they allegedly treat?

warpcrafter wrote:Remember, the ancestors of Big Pharma are the same criminals who started out importing Heroin and Morphine into the pre-revolution Colonies. They're still the same snake-oil salesmen.

Woah, leave us out of it! We're already copping enough flak for the oil-spill!

Also, I'm pretty sure Heroin and Morphine didn't exist back in the 1770s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Turns out I was right.

19th century.

SilverMK2 wrote:Developing drugs (especially for use on humans) is a costly undertaking. The newer drugs tend to have a higher success/failure development rate, but they cost more to develop.

I have heard that drugs companies will make minor changes to a drug in order to keep the patent/etc on it current so other companies cannot use it, which is a bit of a con.

To the three or four posters who mention R&D---It is well known that most pharma companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.

olympia wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Developing drugs (especially for use on humans) is a costly undertaking. The newer drugs tend to have a higher success/failure development rate, but they cost more to develop.

I have heard that drugs companies will make minor changes to a drug in order to keep the patent/etc on it current so other companies cannot use it, which is a bit of a con.

To the three or four posters who mention R&D---It is well known that most pharma companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.

Well known by who?

You're confusing the latest pill for the whiny Me Generation to keep their willies up vs. something real like heart medicine to keep you from dying.

olympia wrote:To the three or four posters who mention R&D---It is well known that most pharma companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't change the fact that it costs more to develop the first pill then the subsequent production of the pill. Yes, the pill may cost .20 to produce after the first one is created, tested, sent through trials, and approved by the FDA, but that first one costs a ton of money. I think you didn't read what we were talking about as one has little to do with the other as to the point being discussed, that is, initial pill vs mass production cost.

Also, i don't know if it is 'well know', so if you can produce some reputable sources on it I'd be happy to see them. Also, as Polonius pointed out, even if it were true, is that unusual or fairly normal?

This is news to precisely no one.

The problem with the American Healthcare system has never really been where the money comes from, it is where the money goes to.

Lawyers, Insurance Companies and Big Pharma, and their lobbies, are the problem. If you could pay a reasonable amount in order to talk to a doctor and be told that your child's cough would go away, or be given a prescription for a reasonably priced drug, then there would be no need for government healthcare.

But the government hasn't even come close to addressing any of these issues - their hands are out and their pockets are lined by the lobbies from these industries. They'd rather increase taxes and plunge us further into debt in order to fund government healthcare, which simply means that my taxes pay for overpriced drugs.

The whole mess can be solved, easily, by regulating the pharmaceutical industries, in the way that utilities are regulated, and by capping malpractice suits and taking the lawyers and insurance companies out of the picture.

The pharmaceuticals are interesting because investors want to see them as a growth stock (which they shouldn't be), and so their CEOs are pushed to yield consistently higher profits. That's ridiculous. The only way to constantly grow in this market is to either a) encourage people who aren't sick that they need to buy something (ala viagra), or to raise prices.

Pharmaceuticals shouldn't be a growth stock, they should be seen as a value stock. They should be paying dividends and making a consistent, yet reasonable, profit quarter after quarter. No one ever went broke buying stock in GE or ComEd or NiCor, and there's a place for these stocks in all balanced portfolios.

Some of you folks really do live in a bubble...

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

olympia wrote:Some of you folks really do live in a bubble...

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

You only answered part of the question. I guess others of us live in their own bubbles. I'm not really sure how asking a question means a person is 'living in a bubble'. No one on here knows everything about every subject, i mean, I know you sure don't, but when you do it is nice of you to share as you are now. Your use of 'living in a bubble' would seem to imply that we either wouldn't inquire or we would have just refuted you outright. Instead we asked you to tell us more and you get all snippy.

I know I live in mine. But its an angry, bitter bubble. Can I live in yours instead?

On the positive I've been informed I know have HD TV. Its a little less angry and bitter once we have the satellite working.

That and the fact that the same pharmaceuticals we have also supply Canada, which does have a price cap. This means that any potential profit they could get in Canada needs to be made up for in America.

There's also the fact that unlike a lot of other industries, pharmaceutical companies can face a lot of trouble if a pill is found to be detrimental to certain people.

Zoloft got a lot of flack and was blamed in causing suicidal tendencies to increase in users. The pharmaceutical company then needed to settle with the victims families and to also pay for legal matters. So there are other costs besides R&D and advertising to consider. Plus there's the employees who need to be paid such as the researchers themselves, factory workers, truck drivers, contractors, representatives, CEO's, legal consultants...

Frazzled wrote:I know I live in mine. But its an angry, bitter bubble. Can I live in yours instead?

On the positive I've been informed I know have HD TV. Its a little less angry and bitter once we have the satellite working.

Discovery channel, national geographic, animal planet--all are essential viewing for HD TV (and all sporting events obviously).

Excellent.

Hockey is better in person, but acceptable on an HD TV.

kronk wrote:Hockey is better in person, but acceptable on an HD TV.

Unless you get hit with a hockley puck of course.

Medium of Death wrote:
Seriously though, what are your politicians doing about this?

Nothing, like the medical community they are on big pharma's list of "we'll send you to a CONFERENCE" in Hawaii.

Honestly, its not accepted as a problem by most US citizens. They are of the mindset of "OMFG drugs are EXPENSIVE to make". No noob, they are not (as expensive as we are led to believe). We don't need new drugs every year to treat the same disease SYMPTOMS. Plz stop chasing treatments and start chasing cures. Its all about $$$$


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
You're confusing the latest pill for the whiny Me Generation to keep their willies up vs. something real like heart medicine to keep you from dying.

Don't knock the penis pills til you try em. Levitra is amazing......worth every penny you pay for it. I'm much more concerned with EFFECTIVE diabetes treatments (hello chidhood onset diabetes wtf are you here for?), and getting rid of the pathological view of EVERY ache, pain, and negative emotion that Americans feel. Hello noobs, you don't need a pill to feel better when you are sad. You need to get off your ass and take control of your life.

Same with pain, my father and sister both suffer from Ankylosing Spondylitis. As a result my father was told he would be crippled by age 35, and my sister has been told the same thing. Medical community was horsegak wrong, plus no painkillers other than asprin needed. Oh, but DAMN did they offer all kinds of $$$ treatment when sister diagnosed. lol noobs, nope. She's fine, just suck it up and be real.

DO NOT NEED PILLS FOR EVERYTHING IN UNIVERSE

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:
Seriously though, what are your politicians doing about this?

Nothing, like the medical community they are on big pharma's list of "we'll send you to a CONFERENCE" in Hawaii.

Honestly, its not accepted as a problem by most US citizens. They are of the mindset of "OMFG drugs are EXPENSIVE to make". No noob, they are not (as expensive as we are led to believe). We don't need new drugs every year to treat the same disease SYMPTOMS. Plz stop chasing treatments and start chasing cures. Its all about $$$$


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
You're confusing the latest pill for the whiny Me Generation to keep their willies up vs. something real like heart medicine to keep you from dying.

Don't knock the penis pills til you try em. Levitra is amazing......worth every penny you pay for it. I'm much more concerned with EFFECTIVE diabetes treatments, and getting rid of the pathological view of EVERY ache, pain, and negative emotion that Americans feel. Hello noobs, you don't need a pill to feel better when you are sad. You need to get off your ass and take control of your life.

Same with pain, my father and sister both suffer from Ankylosing Spondylitis. As a result my father was told he would be crippled by age 35, and my sister has been told the same thing. Medical community was horsegak wrong, plus no painkillers other than asprin needed. Oh, but DAMN did they offer all kinds of $$$ treatment when sister diagnosed. lol noobs, nope. She's fine, just suck it up and be real.

DO NOT NEED PILLS FOR EVERYTHING IN UNIVERSE

And you're qualified to make this statement in any way, shape, or form how?