If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Incidental Economist)   Myth: Pharmaceutical companies' R&D costs are skyrocketing. Reality: Pharmaceutical companies' revenues are skyrocketing six times faster than their R&D costs   (theincidentaleconomist.com) divider line 153
    More: Obvious, BMJ, Phase I, Dean Baker  
•       •       •

3663 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2012 at 7:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-10 03:29:21 PM  
Not to mention that you can write off 100% of your R&D expenses.
 
2012-08-10 03:32:03 PM  
Why do you think the medical industry is more interested in treating symptoms rather than fighting the root cause of disease?
 
2012-08-10 03:34:01 PM  
There's no profit in cures
 
2012-08-10 03:35:26 PM  
They spend several times more on marketing than on R&D, thanks to laws allowing them to advertise on TV and radio. They paid good money for those laws. And the return is spectacular.
 
2012-08-10 03:42:32 PM  
Let the circle jerk.... begin.
 
2012-08-10 03:46:19 PM  
Hold on I thought they could no longer make the profits due to the Obamacare?
 
2012-08-10 03:48:09 PM  

meow said the dog: Hold on I thought they could no longer make the profits due to the Obamacare?


Considering that most of the R&D is done in places like Europe, Southeast Asia and Israel. I'm not surprised.
 
2012-08-10 03:49:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: meow said the dog: Hold on I thought they could no longer make the profits due to the Obamacare?

Considering that most of the R&D is done in places like Europe, Southeast Asia and Israel. I'm not surprised.



THIS. Pfizer, for one, has closed the big research centers in the US that discovered its most profitable drugs. Mainly because the morons in charge of the company run it the same way they would McDonald's.
 
2012-08-10 03:59:59 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Let the circle jerk.... begin.


It is very hard to find an image of the tree elf from "Role Models," so I will just post Kuzzik.

blogs.orlandosentinel.com
 
2012-08-10 04:35:17 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: They spend several times more on marketing than on R&D, thanks to laws allowing them to advertise on TV and radio. They paid good money for those laws. And the return is spectacular.


I never really understood advertising for drugs.

*woman running in a wheat field*

"Ask you're doctor about Alderaanavulcanistron. Symptoms may include dry mouth and horrible twisting death."

Doesn't your doctor know about all this shiat? Why do you have to inform him of the girl you saw running in the field on TV?
 
2012-08-10 04:38:21 PM  

Mugato: I never really understood advertising for drugs.

*woman running in a wheat field*

"Ask you're doctor about Alderaanavulcanistron. Symptoms may include dry mouth and horrible twisting death."

Doesn't your doctor know about all this shiat? Why do you have to inform him of the girl you saw running in the field on TV?


This. I go to my doctor with symtoms, I trust him to figure the best drug for me.
 
2012-08-10 04:46:50 PM  
Yet health care reform is a bad idea.
 
2012-08-10 04:49:03 PM  

jchic: Why do you think the medical industry is more interested in treating symptoms rather than fighting the root cause of disease?


This is only partially true.
Take hypertension as an example. HT is caused by a myriad of diseases, genetic conditions and just plain you are fat and out of shape. Drugs which treat the HT are a god send and keep 100s of millions of people alive everyday. If you think for a second that a drug company wouldnt want to create a "perfect" diet pill then you are insane.

A bigger problem is the medical diagnosing community/insurance companies to start with.
I have HT, but my doctor (like almost all the rest) treated the symptoms. A couple tests were done to rule out the major causes, but in the end, she treated the symptoms, rather than the cause. This happens over and over for the majority of americans. The drug companies are feeding the doctors and the insurance companies/doctors are failing the patients.

In the end, it would have saved the insurance companies tons of dollars doing proper diagnosis, rather than paying for never ending drugs prescriptions.

Perfect example is kidney dialysis vs transplant. Transplant is tons cheaper long term.
And for every condition which is being treated by drugs, there is an opportunity for someone to come up with a cure. Come up with a better vaccine against the common cold?? Even if I needed a shot ever year??? Come up with a cure for aids/hiv? Hello Nobel Prize and fame. and you would be selling that drug like crazy in the rich countries.

Alas, you are completely correct about part of the problem.
Take a quick look at the cure for ulcers. The cure was KNOWN for many years before it came to america. Strangely enough, the cure appeared in america about the same time as the patent expiration for tagamet and zantac, pepcid, prilosec ....

Link fun read from UOFC press
 
2012-08-10 05:22:13 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Let the circle jerk.... begin.


There is only ONE trilogy, ya morons.
 
2012-08-10 05:55:22 PM  

Mugato: Marcus Aurelius: They spend several times more on marketing than on R&D, thanks to laws allowing them to advertise on TV and radio. They paid good money for those laws. And the return is spectacular.

I never really understood advertising for drugs.

*woman running in a wheat field*

"Ask you're doctor about Alderaanavulcanistron. Symptoms may include dry mouth and horrible twisting death."

Doesn't your doctor know about all this shiat? Why do you have to inform him of the girl you saw running in the field on TV?


They do it because it sells, especially with old people. Lots of them will do any damn thing the TV tells them to do.
 
2012-08-10 06:03:39 PM  

Mugato: Marcus Aurelius: They spend several times more on marketing than on R&D, thanks to laws allowing them to advertise on TV and radio. They paid good money for those laws. And the return is spectacular.

I never really understood advertising for drugs.

*woman running in a wheat field*

"Ask you're doctor about Alderaanavulcanistron. Symptoms may include dry mouth and horrible twisting death."

Doesn't your doctor know about all this shiat? Why do you have to inform him of the girl you saw running in the field on TV?


you're = YOUR. Excuse me.

Marcus Aurelius: They do it because it sells, especially with old people. Lots of them will do any damn thing the TV tells them to do.


Well a lot of the ads are for boner and contraceptive pills so it's not just old people who are the marks.
 
2012-08-10 06:28:41 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I never really understood advertising for drugs.

*woman running in a wheat field*

"Ask you're doctor about Alderaanavulcanistron. Symptoms may include dry mouth and horrible twisting death."


Actually, the weird arse commercials that make no sense don't have to list side-effects. They also can't say what the drug does - hence the nonsensical nature of the ads.

/unless that law's changed in the past few years.
 
2012-08-10 06:35:06 PM  
Prescott Pharmaceuticals has already shown you don't need R&D

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-08-10 07:24:01 PM  

downstairs: This. I go to my doctor with symtoms, I trust him to figure the best drug for me.


I too prefer to be totally uneducated on a subject and let the doctor pick the medicine with the hottest pharma rep or biggest kick-backs for my problem like the good ole days
 
2012-08-10 07:25:09 PM  
I wish those evil pharmaceutical corporations would all go out of business. Then we could treat diseases with real cures, like homeopathy and white gold powder.
 
2012-08-10 07:27:25 PM  
Maybe we shouldn't allow a drug to remain patented for several years.... or any years...
 
2012-08-10 07:27:55 PM  

Mugato: Well a lot of the ads are for boner and contraceptive pills so it's not just old people who are the marks


Well, it mostly seems the boner pills are marketed to the over 50 crowd, based on the actors that i have seen.
Now, if those companies gave a crap about actual health, if they spent a half of their budgets on marketing and dedicated that to r & D, we might actually see a way to beat many of the diseases that really need cures.Of course, it would still cost 5 times as much for the cure, in the US- I mean, that bentley or 8th house aint buying themselves...
 
2012-08-10 07:29:35 PM  

jchic: Why do you think the medical industry is more interested in treating symptoms rather than fighting the root cause of disease?


Why indeed.
 
2012-08-10 07:30:05 PM  
Did they get their patents extended to 70 years, or are they still changing the filler ingredient and re applying for patents every 7?
 
2012-08-10 07:30:45 PM  
No shiat.

If I understood my psych professor correctly, once they figured out what gets people to buy in to a particular scenario, they're far more likely to do what sells over what is actually working.

Case in point, that Roche BC drug that got its approval yanked - despite what I read about the cost, questionable success or effectiveness, people were going BONKERS when they stopped selling it.

I'm all for treating BC as effectively as possible, but the stuff didn't apparently work for most of the people who took it, and you could buy a good house for the cost over time. Psychology + advertising is a bad bad place to get into unless you have no conscience. At which point, line them up against the wall, please.

/F this shiat O'Clock, sorry.
//Also miss my mom.
 
2012-08-10 07:31:03 PM  

MugzyBrown: Maybe we shouldn't allow a drug to remain patented for several years.... or any years...


So... How would that work? A company would invest millions into developing a new drug and then just hand it over to the competition? They'd go out of business with a model like that.
 
2012-08-10 07:31:36 PM  
I read it on some dude's blog, it must be true.
 
2012-08-10 07:31:47 PM  
aaaand their legal expenses are skyrocketing six times faster than their revenues.
 
2012-08-10 07:32:46 PM  

MBooda: aaaand their legal expenses are skyrocketing six times faster than their revenues.


You wish
 
2012-08-10 07:33:19 PM  

Marcus Aurelius:
They do it because it sells, especially with old people. Lots of them will do any damn thing the TV tells them to do.


You poor fool. I used to be like you, but now I'm on Ageless Male.
I'm stronger than I used to be, I have more energy, and I'm ready for romance if the time comes.


Targeted advertising is hilarious. The Military Channel has some of the best stuff. The demographic is clearly 50+ year old overweight men with shattered dreams of glory.
 
2012-08-10 07:34:03 PM  

NowhereMon: Not to mention that you can write off 100% of your R&D expenses.


Nearly 100%.

I once got scolded for having overtime while doing R&D because they were close to maxing out their R&D tax write off, but I'm not in the pharmaceutical industry.

Salary, so I didn't get any extra $$$ for the OT, but it had to be done. 10 12hour+ days will do that.
 
2012-08-10 07:34:21 PM  
I'm posting this while eating a steak dinner that's on Pfizer's dime, so I'm really getting a kick out of... this steak and beer.
 
2012-08-10 07:34:23 PM  
Also: The FDA is in their pocket.
 
2012-08-10 07:34:44 PM  
They definitely have enough money for grandpas boner pill adds!
 
2012-08-10 07:35:09 PM  
Try losing your job and insurance when you're on Stelara to clear your psoriasis. I was totally clear of the horrible skin disease on that drug. Months later I'm covered in plaque. Basically your skin grows too fast and dies off leaving pieces of dead skin the size of corn flakes that itch to no end. I called the pharma company to see If I could purchase it and have my dermatologist give me the shot (required 4 times a year). The price for one injection is $6,900 or close to $28,000 dollars per year. Wearing shorts is a luxury to me.
 
2012-08-10 07:37:06 PM  

MugzyBrown: downstairs: This. I go to my doctor with symtoms, I trust him to figure the best drug for me.

I too prefer to be totally uneducated on a subject and let the doctor pick the medicine with the hottest pharma rep or biggest kick-backs for my problem like the good ole days


That's why the commercials are so great! Instead of the patient being unsure about the New Drug the physician is recommending, they're on board from the get-go; after all, they saw it on TV! Everybody* wins!

*"Everybody" includes, and is limited to shareholders of New Drug, INC.
 
2012-08-10 07:37:14 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MugzyBrown: Maybe we shouldn't allow a drug to remain patented for several years.... or any years...

So... How would that work? A company would invest millions into developing a new drug and then just hand it over to the competition? They'd go out of business with a model like that.


They'd license it for a reasonable fee. Or the government would pay for research, much as it does now in universities.
 
2012-08-10 07:37:21 PM  

Heraclitus: They definitely have enough money for grandpas boner pill adds!


The first boner pills were an accidental side effect while working on something to help people with pulmonary hypertension (and mountain climbers). It just turned out that boners make more money than keeping people with PAH (like me) alive a little longer.
 
2012-08-10 07:37:43 PM  
Pharma companies make money. BFD. This means my in-laws will have an income and can eat.
 
2012-08-10 07:38:11 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: They spend several times more on marketing than on R&D, thanks to laws allowing them to advertise on TV and radio. They paid good money for those laws. And the return is spectacular.


Several? NINETEEN TIMES as much according to TFA.


Mugato: Marcus Aurelius: They spend several times more on marketing than on R&D, thanks to laws allowing them to advertise on TV and radio. They paid good money for those laws. And the return is spectacular.

I never really understood advertising for drugs.

*woman running in a wheat field*

"Ask you're doctor about Alderaanavulcanistron. Symptoms may include dry mouth and horrible twisting death."

Doesn't your doctor know about all this shiat? Why do you have to inform him of the girl you saw running in the field on TV?


The one I especially love is the one for Nexium that says "You wouldn't want your doctor doing your job, so why should you do his?" and then directs people to ask their doctors for Nexium.


NowhereMon: Not to mention that you can write off 100% of your R&D expenses.


Also don't mention that government research is responsible a lot of these drugs.

According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995
 
2012-08-10 07:38:26 PM  

NowhereMon: Not to mention that you can write off 100% of your R&D expenses.


Um, write-off doesn't mean it's free, and that's conditional.

But yeah, speaking as someone on the science end of things, generally speaking the techniques for standard drug delivery and rapid chemical modification have been getting easier (i.e. cheaper) not harder. The idea that the same amount of research to obtain a drug as you'd put in ten years ago is somehow more expensive than it was ten years ago (inflation aside) is kind of an extraordinary claim that I'd want some solid citations for before I believed it to begin with.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MugzyBrown: Maybe we shouldn't allow a drug to remain patented for several years.... or any years...

So... How would that work? A company would invest millions into developing a new drug and then just hand it over to the competition? They'd go out of business with a model like that.


Before we had patents, we had trade secrets (technically there are still trade secrets, they're just protected by contract law rather than law law). You would carefully not tell anyone what was in your product, throw random harmless functionalities onto your chemicals to confuse spectrometers, engage in a lot of low-level industrial espionage, etc.

Basically drugs used to be handled the way the Coke/Pepsi conflict was handled (albeit we _had_ patents, the protection at the time was just extremely minimal and enforcement was almost entirely beyond the capacity of the feds). I kinda prefer the current system where people can take the information and build on it, even if they're not allowed to replicate it exactly. It's a good compromise that keeps all the wheels turning.
 
2012-08-10 07:38:42 PM  

darwinpolice: I'm posting this while eating a steak dinner that's on Pfizer's dime, so I'm really getting a kick out of... this steak and beer.


Why are you texting, you should be getting a hooker with that.
 
2012-08-10 07:39:21 PM  
This is news?

Of course they do. You expect them to do that work for only a modest profit? Who the fark would bother making medicine without lavish compensation?
 
2012-08-10 07:40:41 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MugzyBrown: Maybe we shouldn't allow a drug to remain patented for several years.... or any years...

So... How would that work? A company would invest millions into developing a new drug and then just hand it over to the competition? They'd go out of business with a model like that.

They'd license it for a reasonable fee. Or the government would pay for research, much as it does now in universities.


You don't work in the private sector, do you?
 
2012-08-10 07:40:42 PM  

fusillade762: Also don't mention that government research is responsible a lot of these drugs.

According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995


Taxpayers take the risk and private companies get the profits. How our glorious free market system works, right?
 
2012-08-10 07:43:03 PM  
And how fast are costs going up?
 
2012-08-10 07:43:04 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: This is news?

Of course they do. You expect them to do that work for only a modest profit? Who the fark would bother making medicine without lavish compensation?


Apparently most of the people in this thread would be. Why they're posting on Fark instead of using their own money to develop cures for diseases, I have no clue.
 
2012-08-10 07:43:25 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: I'm stronger than I used to be, I have more energy, and I'm ready for romance if the time comes.


Uh oh, Selective Middle-Aged Memory Loss. It's when you think you're smarter or in better shape at 40 than 20...
 
2012-08-10 07:44:12 PM  
My problem is that I'm bald, overweight, have a tiny penis, and I have more money than sense. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF ME!?!?!
 
2012-08-10 07:44:31 PM  
Having not read the thread or TFA,

Next up on ABC Monday Night Be-headings, - Bankers, Lawyers, Pharmaceutical CEOs. Ending with Career Politicians!

Sponsored by "Antoinette Guillotines", the finest in falling Blades!
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report