81–90 of 422 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned
It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. If I asked my GP for a specific medication they'd look at me like an alien.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned
It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. If I asked my GP for a specific medication they'd look at me like an alien.
I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…
> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned
I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, insulin is a great example of why your premise is false: Insulin replacement was developed a century ago, being first discovered by a government entity (U of Toronto). Private companies commercialized the treatments in the 1940s and 1950s, developing long acting forms that could be administered in a single injection per day. Since then, pharmaceutical companies have made continuous improvements with fewer…
>Instead of “scrapping” the industry, wouldn’t it make more sense to, as a first step, get rid of regulatory roadblocks that prevent competitors from producing out of patent drugs? What's your solution for drugs that aren't out of patent?
It may very well be quite true that the price of insulin is too high but price controls really are not that great. If the price now is to high, $100 probably still is too high. Also, in the more general case (not for insulin, obviously) pharma does need to recover its research costs and who is going to say what is a good price and what not. You know, capitalism actually kind of works and price controls just don't. Th…
What needs to happen is, again and again with health care issues, transparency.
Manufacturers should be required to declare and with audits prove how much they're spending to manufacture everything. Then everyone can see the price they're being charged and figure in their head what sort of markup they are being charged.
Then we can start to push back on the companies need to recoup primarily marketing costs and dividends and bonus programs and all the other padding that they have built up over decades of never being held accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When it costs billions to develop a new drug due to onerous testing regulations, that's what happens. This does not explain the increase in cost of insulin, which was invented in 1923.
You can buy the formulation that was invented in 1923 for cheap. It's newer formulations that are expensive, and those are still protected by patents.
I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…
Comments like this always make me sad. Not just because I disagree with them (I do!) or that I think they are claiming certainty about facts in dispute (I think they are ! [1, 2] ) but because they make no mention of trade-offs. We can vehemently disagree about these things, get our information from different sources, and advocate for different policies, but hopefully we can all agree that there _would_ be tradeoffs?…
I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…
You're looking at the wrong data. You need to look at return on capital. Right now the return on capital in pharma is below the cost of capital and it's trending towards zero. The inevitable result is significantly lower funding for research. https://endpts.com/pharmas-broken-business-model-an-industry...
Perhaps the marketing and R&D departments compete internally for budget. They certainly do at every other company I've worked at.
And drug marketing is peculiar. One would expect demand to be largely inelastic, so it's odd to see marketing spend on par with that of soft drinks in the industry. Nor can we safely assume that whatever portion of demand is driven by marketing is beneficial from a public health perspective, given that overtreatment is known to be a serious problem in the USA, and that a significant motivator for overtreatment is patient pressure on health care providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much is spent on marketing in comparison? Only in the US and New Zealand can you market drugs directly to the public. I sense an opportunity to destroy an unnecessary cost.
If you believe the market is choosing to waste money on ineffective marketing, sure. Do you have any particular reason to think that? Why would you expect return on capital to go up without marketing?
If nobody is marketing, that definitely might increase return on capital.