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 New York Times)   It turns out that critical cancer drugs can be made for a fraction of what pharmaceutical companies want to charge for them   (nytimes.com) divider line 134
    More: Obvious, cancer drugs, generic drugs, drug companies, Gleevec, Novartis, India's Supreme Court, Doctors Without Borders, supreme court ruled  
•       •       •

3024 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Apr 2013 at 2:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-01 01:10:55 PM
same thing is true for every product sold.
or do you think products cost more than they are sold for?

/a fraction usually means less than 1.  how do they work?
//although 12/11 is also a fraction.
 
2013-04-01 01:15:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: same thing is true for every product sold.
or do you think products cost more than they are sold for?

/a fraction usually means less than 1.  how do they work?
//although 12/11 is also a fraction.


Absolutely!  Maintaining the integrity of capitalism and the free market is far more important than treating the pain and suffering of millions afflicted with the farking plague of mankind.
 
2013-04-01 01:19:55 PM
static.rateyourmusic.com
 
2013-04-01 01:26:09 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: tenpoundsofcheese: same thing is true for every product sold.
or do you think products cost more than they are sold for?

/a fraction usually means less than 1.  how do they work?
//although 12/11 is also a fraction.

Absolutely!  Maintaining the integrity of capitalism and the free market is far more important than treating the pain and suffering of millions afflicted with the farking plague of mankind.


Capitalism has its pros and cons. One of the biggest pros is that it is more extensive than the natural trading system of barterdom. A man may have apples and want oranges. Well, if no one wants apples, then he won't be able to trade. Money alleviates this issue because it can change hands for infinite things.

Its not a perfect system. It could do with a few changes I'll admit. However, it is in this world of limited resources this system is better than direct barter.
 
2013-04-01 01:30:53 PM
The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.
 
2013-04-01 01:36:15 PM

cman: AdolfOliverPanties: tenpoundsofcheese: same thing is true for every product sold.
or do you think products cost more than they are sold for?

/a fraction usually means less than 1.  how do they work?
//although 12/11 is also a fraction.

Absolutely!  Maintaining the integrity of capitalism and the free market is far more important than treating the pain and suffering of millions afflicted with the farking plague of mankind.

Capitalism has its pros and cons. One of the biggest pros is that it is more extensive than the natural trading system of barterdom. A man may have apples and want oranges. Well, if no one wants apples, then he won't be able to trade. Money alleviates this issue because it can change hands for infinite things.

Its not a perfect system. It could do with a few changes I'll admit. However, it is in this world of limited resources this system is better than direct barter.


And in the American system, a person's life is equal to their net worth.
 
2013-04-01 01:48:14 PM
i.imgur.com
"Pharmakom?"
 
2013-04-01 01:48:16 PM
They have to pay for their marketing budget somehow.
 
2013-04-01 01:49:25 PM
There's no money in a cure, is there?
 
2013-04-01 01:52:57 PM

MaxxLarge: There's no money in a cure, is there?


IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
 
2013-04-01 01:54:36 PM
So the pharmaceutical company is complaining that the court's ruling that their innovation isn't innovative enough and that will stifle innovation?

Look, if you can't make enough money in twenty years on your drug, perhaps you're in the wrong business.  There are patent limitations for a reason.  If only we'd learn that in this country.

/I'm looking at you Mouse, Inc.
 
2013-04-01 02:11:27 PM

MaxxLarge: There's no money in a cure, is there?


Precisely. Countries with socialized healthcare and governments that actually give a sh*t about the citizenry have banned many things that are still used in for profit society  - ie, amalgam fillings, GMO foods.
 
2013-04-01 02:20:00 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.


Yes, but after they made $800 million, to continue to charge large amounts of money for those drugs is reprehensible.
 
2013-04-01 02:21:51 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.


Yeah, big pharma is pretty despicable in general but it is very disingenuous to just look at the actual cost of the ingredients and pretend that is how much a drug costs.  It might only cost a dollar to make the next pill.  But it probably cost hundreds of millions to figure out that was the right set of ingredients.
 
2013-04-01 02:24:30 PM
Before we get all over excited about how badly we're getting screwed by the major drug companies, allow me to point out a few things.

Yes. We are getting screwed.

However, a new drug takes from 5 to 10 years in mandatory FDA testing to be approved for human use, during which time it can fail for any number of reasons, costing the creating company billions.

These rules were implemented ages ago when people churned out 'patent' medicines by that truckload, which either did nothing for you, tended to be loaded with various poisons or just basically hid your symptoms by getting you drunk or stoned.

Patent laws were introduced centuries ago because people kept ripping each other off over good ideas. Da Vinci (SP) coded his ideas in secret script and many of his detailed drawings had parts deliberately left out -- to keep the devices from working if the plans were stolen and claimed by someone else.
Prior to the 1970's, medications were cheaper, and then drug companies started becoming fat targets for lawsuits, which required them to start listing every possible side effect, even minor ones, that could come from the use of their product. That also translated to the disclaimers spoken on TV ads for drugs that can scare the shiat out of a potential user.

It wasn't just the lawyers here either. Regular folks started seeing million dollar settlements over conditions which may or may not have been caused by the use of a drug.

It didn't help matters at all when a couple of common drugs given to pregnant women turned out to have the unfortunate side effect of deforming the fetus.

By the time the 80'shiat, drug costs had skyrocketed. People were willing to pay big money to live. The change in business attitude, fostered by the Yuppies, demanded greater and greater profits. Better profits meant more investors. Along came things like HMO's, which ballanced patient care against the yearly profit picture.

Shortly after generics appeared, we discovered that many were made with sub grade ingredients. Naturally, the majority came from China. A loophole in the laws allowed enterprising folks to cobble together herbal medications and sell them for everything from weight loss to sexual potency -- meaning most lied and some could seriously harm you.

Costs went up after Saudi Arabia decided to screw everyone over oil and these costs got passed down to consumers.

India has such a fine history of concern for the average citizen (NOT!) and human life that I'd be hesitant to take any generic drugs manufactured there. The same with China -- as we've already discovered about 100 times.

However, then you run into something like this: Excedrin Migraine Headache tablets are $10.00 for 100. (OTC) Excedrin extra strength are around $6.00 for 100. Equate Generic Extra strength Excedrin are $4.00 for 200.

ALL have the same ingredients in the same amounts. Especially Excedrin Migraine.

There have been many instances when generic medications -- prescription strength -- have not done as well as the brand name because of cheaper quality. Maybe the generic maker will leave out an additive that allows the pill to dissolve quickly, meaning it either takes longer to get into your system or more of it can be expelled through your digestive tract.

You can buy prescription strength ibuprophin with a prescription, for a high price, or, like a pharmacist said to me, buy the cheap OTC version and take 3 pills instead of two.

So, there are pros and cons. However, medications made in certain foreign lands have a history of problems since the quality controls are often not as strict. (Kind of like you find in various street drugs, whose dealers will cut them with anything from sugar to chalk.)
 
2013-04-01 02:24:59 PM

AbbeySomeone: GMO foods.


you know.. as an environmentalist and someone who understands science... blanket banning GMO foods is dumb. Just because we don't trust Monsanto (rightly so), doesn't mean we should ban genetic engineering a better food supply.
 
2013-04-01 02:28:53 PM
Rik10 a lot of those R&D costs are government subsidized to start with. stop forgetting that. or were you too busy jerking off big pharma to do some real research?
 
2013-04-01 02:30:12 PM

Kazan: AbbeySomeone: GMO foods.

you know.. as an environmentalist and someone who understands science... blanket banning GMO foods is dumb. Just because we don't trust Monsanto (rightly so), doesn't mean we should ban genetic engineering a better food supply.


If you understand science and are an environmentalist, then do you trust the safety of nuclear power?

People will fit facts to their political beliefs. Left always talks about those who deny global warming; but they turn a blind eye on science and nuclear safety.
 
2013-04-01 02:32:10 PM

cman: If you understand science and are an environmentalist, then do you trust the safety of nuclear power?


on a properly maintained power plant, absolutely. Especially a Gen III+ or Gen IV which we are just getting ready to build.

Ones leaking tritium on the other hand... :P (not that tritium itself is a huge problem, but it does show a concerning lack of proper maintenance)


cman: Left always talks about those who deny global warming; but they turn a blind eye on science and nuclear safety.


no i don't. if you paid any attention to previous threads discussing nuclear safety you'd see me throwing down with my usual allies because of them being stupid on nuclear.
 
2013-04-01 02:34:33 PM

Kazan: cman: If you understand science and are an environmentalist, then do you trust the safety of nuclear power?

on a properly maintained power plant, absolutely. Especially a Gen III+ or Gen IV which we are just getting ready to build.

Ones leaking tritium on the other hand... :P (not that tritium itself is a huge problem, but it does show a concerning lack of proper maintenance)


cman: Left always talks about those who deny global warming; but they turn a blind eye on science and nuclear safety.

no i don't. if you paid any attention to previous threads discussing nuclear safety you'd see me throwing down with my usual allies because of them being stupid on nuclear.


My apologies but I did not notice you.

Happens to me all the time. There are those who group me with racists and homophobes because of my right wing views. However, not only do I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I also believe in gay marriage.
 
2013-04-01 02:37:02 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.


and don't forget that the other 8 pills they tried to developed also cost $400M each...and they failed.
 
2013-04-01 02:38:13 PM

cman: Kazan: cman: If you understand science and are an environmentalist, then do you trust the safety of nuclear power?

on a properly maintained power plant, absolutely. Especially a Gen III+ or Gen IV which we are just getting ready to build.

Ones leaking tritium on the other hand... :P (not that tritium itself is a huge problem, but it does show a concerning lack of proper maintenance)


cman: Left always talks about those who deny global warming; but they turn a blind eye on science and nuclear safety.

no i don't. if you paid any attention to previous threads discussing nuclear safety you'd see me throwing down with my usual allies because of them being stupid on nuclear.

My apologies but I did not notice you.

Happens to me all the time. There are those who group me with racists and homophobes because of my right wing views. However, not only do I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I also believe in gay marriage.


i already have you tagged along the lines of 'economic rightist, socially ok'.
 
2013-04-01 02:38:53 PM

MaxxLarge: There's no money in a cure, is there?


www.phdcomics.com

There would be MASSIVE money in a cure because everyone gets a cancer at some point. But your post was bad, and you should feel bad.

AbbeySomeone: GMO foods.


The EU bans on GMO foods have less to do with science, and more to do with anti-corporatism (fark you, Monsanto) and paranoid NIMBYism. These same countries also outlawed food irradiation as a method of disease control and pasteurization.
 
2013-04-01 02:40:27 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.


that was a pretty awesome quote
on the other hand, the game that they are playing with new patents for "purified" versions is a bit disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armodafinil

are a perfect example of this bullshiat.
I get screwed paying for the purer form, because the insurance companies wont pay for the better, less side-effect version.
And of course big-pharma loves this game. My guess is that every new drug will do through this patent cycle.

dont get me started with Paxil vs Pexeva. Paroxetine HCL vs mesylate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine
YAY a new patent!!!
 
2013-04-01 02:49:02 PM

hardinparamedic: The EU bans on GMO foods have less to do with science, and more to do with anti-corporatism (fark you, Monsanto) and paranoid NIMBYism. These same countries also outlawed food irradiation as a method of disease control and pasteurization.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation#European_Union_Irradia te d_Food_Supply

LOL
 
2013-04-01 02:54:54 PM
Unpossible.
 
2013-04-01 02:59:56 PM

Thoguh: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.

Yeah, big pharma is pretty despicable in general but it is very disingenuous to just look at the actual cost of the ingredients and pretend that is how much a drug costs.  It might only cost a dollar to make the next pill.  But it probably cost hundreds of millions to figure out that was the right set of ingredients.


I used to work for a few pharmas. I was always told a new drug typically costs 5-10 billion to develop.
 
2013-04-01 03:09:16 PM

MaxxLarge: There's no money in a cure, is there?


That has got to be one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever. A cure for cancer would be worth billions. It's just that it would only be worth it to the first person to find it.
 
2013-04-01 03:10:20 PM
"is a shortsighted strategy that undermines a vital system for funding new discoveries"

Really? It undermines grad student researchers who get paid pennies on the dollar to develop things?

hardinparamedic: These same countries also outlawed food irradiation as a method of disease control and pasteurization.


No, that would be the US, because the word 'irradiation' makes folks flip the fark out.
 
2013-04-01 03:19:27 PM

sammyk: Thoguh: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.

Yeah, big pharma is pretty despicable in general but it is very disingenuous to just look at the actual cost of the ingredients and pretend that is how much a drug costs.  It might only cost a dollar to make the next pill.  But it probably cost hundreds of millions to figure out that was the right set of ingredients.

I used to work for a few pharmas. I was always told a new drug typically costs 5-10 billion to develop.


I'd never heard of anything quite that high; I always heard that if you divided the amount a company spends on research by the number of drugs they successfully get to market, it was typically between $100 million and $1 billion. Regardless, yeah, it's generally a ton of money.
 
2013-04-01 03:22:42 PM

Thoguh: Yeah, big pharma is pretty despicable in general but it is very disingenuous to just look at the actual cost of the ingredients and pretend that is how much a drug costs. It might only cost a dollar to make the next pill. But it probably cost hundreds of millions to figure out that was the right set of ingredients.


This.

/Intellectual property is a biatch sometimes
 
2013-04-01 03:22:55 PM
Good thing I don't plan on getting cancer.
 
2013-04-01 03:25:15 PM

namatad: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The actual ingredients cost less than a dollar. I think the show West Wing put it well.

TOBY : The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH : You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.

that was a pretty awesome quote
on the other hand, the game that they are playing with new patents for "purified" versions is a bit disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armodafinil

are a perfect example of this bullshiat.
I get screwed paying for the purer form, because the insurance companies wont pay for the better, less side-effect version.
And of course big-pharma loves this game. My guess is that every new drug will do through this patent cycle.

dont get me started with Paxil vs Pexeva. Paroxetine HCL vs mesylate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine
YAY a new patent!!!


If your insurance is dicking you over on the modafinil, it is available OTC in India and if you're willing to risk it being caught in customs I would check there. I may or may not have used this sight before  https://mymodafinil.net/ and from what I could gather it is totally legit.
 
2013-04-01 03:27:10 PM

cman: AdolfOliverPanties: tenpoundsofcheese: same thing is true for every product sold.
or do you think products cost more than they are sold for?

/a fraction usually means less than 1.  how do they work?
//although 12/11 is also a fraction.

Absolutely!  Maintaining the integrity of capitalism and the free market is far more important than treating the pain and suffering of millions afflicted with the farking plague of mankind.

Capitalism has its pros and cons. One of the biggest pros is that it is more extensive than the natural trading system of barterdom. A man may have apples and want oranges. Well, if no one wants apples, then he won't be able to trade. Money alleviates this issue because it can change hands for infinite things.

Its not a perfect system. It could do with a few changes I'll admit. However, it is in this world of limited resources this system is better than direct barter.


It's a good way to get an economy started, but after a while, you end up with these "black holes", companies so large they operate outside the norm of other businesses within the system.  And there's flawed assumptions in capitalism as well.  "Made money = made a good product" is true most of the time, but not always.  If we both make pizza in a small town, and I want to be the #1 spot, I have a few options.  Capitalism hopes I will innovate, make a better product for less, or offer something my competitor can't.  But in the end, it's easier to just go on craigslist and post "I found hair on my pizza at Joe's Pizza place!"  Capitalism tries to measure innovation and improved technology by measuring profit.  Works most of the time, but in the end, there's other ways to boost profit that aren't in the intentions of capitalism.
 
2013-04-01 03:29:21 PM
Nationalize all drug companies. The research is already government funded and driven, there is no reason those lifesaving discoveries should be withheld from the citizens that paid for them. Simply cutting out the executive management and marketing costs will reduce the price of these things by a factor of 2.
 
2013-04-01 03:35:40 PM
"What is happening in the United States is that a lot of money is being wasted on new forms of old drugs," Mr. Grover said. Because of Monday's ruling, "that will not happen in India."

"Indeed, the vast majority of drug patents given in the United States are for tiny changes that often provide patients few meaningful benefits but allow drug companies to continue charging high prices for years beyond the original patent life."

"The drug industry makes nearly two-thirds of its profits in the United States, a dependence that many in the industry fear is unsustainable."
 
2013-04-01 03:50:45 PM
Does someone have an O RLY owl handy? I can't seem to find mine.

I must of left it in any number of other NY Times thread.....


Oh wait....nebba mind....found it.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-01 03:57:45 PM
Marijuana will be legalized as soon as someone finds a way to patent it.
 
2013-04-01 03:58:16 PM
I irradiate my own food.
 
2013-04-01 03:58:33 PM
Aaargh, this argument always makes my hair stand on end.

Yes, it takes, for the sake of a round number for argument, $1 billion to develop a serious drug.  $800 million of that comes from grants, subsidies, breaks, giveaways, and other government funding (that comes out of all of our paychecks every single week).So, that first pill actually cost them about $200 million.  Great.  It's a good drug.  Say, a million prescriptions' worth of a good drug, worldwide.  If a daily dose costs $10 (pretty cheap for a cancer drug), that's $3.6 BILLION in the first year.  Even if they have to give up 75% of that to taxes, renewed investment, and insurance companies (they don't but let's cut them some slack), that's still in the neighborhood of $1 billion.  A 500% return in 1 year.  Not every drug is a hit, but you can subsidize TEN flops on this success and still profit 10 figures or near to it.

Patent cycles on drugs are what, 10 years?  20?  Looks like Viagra was good for 14 years before they got an extension, so let's use that.  Assume it costs $5 million per year to make and distribute and advertise the thing.  Total outlay in the first 14 years comes to about $270 million, total profit well over $10 billion dollars, and that's even with throwing away 75% of the profit just to be conservative about their admittedly unknown true costs.

But no.  That's not good enough.  Decade-long 500% returns, billions in pure profit on top of reinvestment and research on the next thing, but it's NOT ENOUGH.  Have to keep those prices high.  Have to keep changing the dye in the pill coating to renew the patent for another decade, for the fifth time.  So what if people die because of all that.  A lot of people would kill for a billion dollars if they could get away with it, let alone ten or twenty billion.

You farkers can defend them all you want, but you should be ashamed of yourselves.  I think their patents should be dissolved, their boards shot for crimes against humanity (donate your net worth to the national debt and never set foot on US soil or work in the medical field again and you can live), and the profits redistributed to the doctors, scientists, and researchers.  Then ban patent extensions for life-saving drugs.  Period. None of this "evergreening" bullshiat.  That's fine for viagra, but not for cancer treatment.
 
2013-04-01 04:01:17 PM
Good primer on how the pharmaceutical market works in this country:

I own Warner Chilcott!
 
2013-04-01 04:07:21 PM

TheOtherGuy: You farkers can defend them all you want, but you should be ashamed of yourselves.


Coming from the person who just made up numbers to try to make a point.
 
2013-04-01 04:09:23 PM
FTFA:

It costs $70,000 a year for the treatment in the US.

It costs $2,500 a year for the treatment in India.

WTF!
 
2013-04-01 04:10:31 PM

eraser8: Good primer on how the pharmaceutical market works in this country:

I own Warner Chilcott!


LOL
that was pretty short and funny

I liked the comment about what big farma does with their investment dollars.
Curing malaria vs male pattern baldness!!
 
2013-04-01 04:13:19 PM

TheOtherGuy: But no. That's not good enough. Decade-long 500% returns


Can you point out to me which pharma company is getting decade-long 500% returns?  I would like to invest in them.
 
2013-04-01 04:14:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: TheOtherGuy: You farkers can defend them all you want, but you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Coming from the person who just made up numbers to try to make a point.


What, you doubt that there are a million new, unique candidates for every new cancer drug that hits the market?
 
2013-04-01 04:18:37 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: TheOtherGuy: But no. That's not good enough. Decade-long 500% returns

Can you point out to me which pharma company is getting decade-long 500% returns?  I would like to invest in them.


I've got a better idea.  You and I can start our own pharm company, and we'll just undercut the other guys by 10%.  Patients and insurance companies will be thrilled, and we'll collect 450% returns and a fistfull of Nobel Prizes.  I can only assume chicks love Nobel Prize winners.
 
2013-04-01 04:21:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Coming from the person who just made up numbers to try to make a point.


tenpoundsofcheese: Can you point out to me which pharma company is getting decade-long 500% returns? I would like to invest in them.


tenpoundsofcheese: same thing is true for every product sold.
or do you think products cost more than they are sold for?


Oh god help me I agree with tenpoundsofhceese.

What's more,

TheOtherGuy: Decade-long 500% returns


You should feel ashamed of yourself TheOtherGuy.  Not for wildly making up numbers, that's par for the course here on Fark.com.  You should feel ashamed for writing a post that elicited a reply from tenpoundsofcheese that I agreed with.  Go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.
 
2013-04-01 04:25:10 PM

Heraclitus: FTFA:

It costs $70,000 a year for the treatment in the US.

It costs $2,500 a year for the treatment in India.

WTF!


There's another funny thing about India.  Look around on the Indian medical web sites.  They publish ALL THEIR FRIGGIING PRICES.  All of them.

Now try the same experiment in America.  Call up any old hospital or laboratory and ask them what an overnight stay or one of their services costs.

I triple dog dare you.
 
2013-04-01 04:26:28 PM

cman: People will fit facts to their political beliefs. Left always talks about those who deny global warming; but they turn a blind eye on science and nuclear safety.


As a far left liberal, I would love to see more nuclear power plants.  But as you said, people fit facts to their political beliefs and you totally believe the left hates nuclear power.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report