Who really pays for Pharmaceutical Research? - page 2

From Robert Reich: But pharmaceutical companies don't own up to the fact that you and I are already paying twice for new drugs. Not only do we pay high and rapidly-escalating purchase prices for... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Sorry, not my camp.
    LOL.

    I specifically couched that comment to reflect that I was debating a specific POV and not necessarily YOUR POV. (Can you tell that I searched for a way to say that without pegging it to YOU).

    You're such an engima, I wouldn't try to peg YOU so generally.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    I do agree with one thing. Pharmaceuticals should not advertise precription drugs over the docs heads and straight to the mass public. Otherwise, we may as well just do away with the 'prescription' process.

    http://www.amsa.org/bio/drugs.cfm

    The boom in DTC (direct to consumer) prescription drug advertising came about as a result of the FDA relaxing of airtime rules for DTC advertising in 1997.

    To be sure, DTC ads have been around since the early '80s, but it was the 1997 rules that codified the 'acceptable' way to DTC advertise (ads must cite a source for consumers to seek more info, etc.) Until then, these types of ads were considered 'dubious' and the FDA pulled several of them. Codifying a means to DTC advertise was the 'green light' that allowed for DTC advertising spending to triple, beginning in 1997.

    And, I type this AS I'm watching a TV commercial for Zetia.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    I know. Those ads for the newest purple pill, cholesterol lowering med, and ED cost I think twenty thousand dollars per channel per run. "Ask your doctor"

    Profits of pharmaceutical companies:
    http://www.calnurses.org/research/pd...harma-Corp.pdf

    Second Annual Hospital 200: Hospitals, Big Pharma, HMOs and the Health Care War Economy:
    http://www.calnurses.org/research/pd...spital-200.pdf


    PS: You are so very clever. It's true.
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Aug 16, '06
  4. by   SharonH, RN
    Quote from azhiker96
    We aren't paying for 87.5% of the cost of research.
    The number is irrevelant. Even if we are paying only 25%, why should we when they have billions of dollars in profit to reinvest?
  5. by   azhiker96
    Quote from SharonH, RN
    The number is irrevelant. Even if we are paying only 25%, why should we when they have billions of dollars in profit to reinvest?
    We pay that because our government thinks it's important to fund research into new drugs. We also get a RETURN on the money spent in the form of licensing fees.

    According to an article in Mother Earth News the royalty paid to NIH for Taxol is 0.5 percent, about $8M in 2000. Now I don't know if that pays back the investment in 10 years, 5 years, or 6 months but that return needs to be considered before people make assertions that all of the research dollars are a gift to the phamaceutical companies.

    I support our government targeting research dollars into drugs. I also think they need to make sure they get a fair return with licensing fees. The problem I see with the detractors is they don't consider the whole process and instead sensationalize the research as a giveaway. Even if the government had zero royalties they could have a net gain from better treatment for it's citizens, better outcomes, and less hospitalization costs.
  6. by   lamazeteacher
    Thank you for your informative message. Another source of income for pharmaceutical research, is grants from porivate agencies.
    Did you read the article by the manufacturer of Effexor, about generic anti-depressants? Misleading, at best.
  7. by   gwenith
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    T

    See, part of the problem is that the REST of the world demands these drugs at below development costs and without regard to liability. So, the companies recoup that cost on the American public. But, without a rich profit environment, many of these drugs would simply not be made.


    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Sorry Timothy but as a member of the "rest of the word" and particularly one that the drug companies have been screaming about undercutting the profit margin - I do take exception to this.

    1) Australia and the Australian goverment funds a great deal of drug research - see the new papilloma virus vaccine as an example, but it is not just Australia that is researching new drugs.

    2) They do not "recoup the cost on the American people". This is a fallacy that I for one would love to see supported by fact. Many of the drug companies that are supplying below cost medicines to places like Africa are based not in the USA but in Europe.

    3) It is not neccessarily cheaper to buy drugs here - but it is subsidised by the goverment so it seems cheaper but we do pay. http://news.csu.edu.au/director/late...mplate=release

    4) Your own internal politics are more responsible for what is happening i.e.
    The AARP study determined that brand name drug prices increased at more than four times the rate of inflation during the first three months of this year. This was the largest quarterly price hike in six years. Older Americans take an average of four prescription drugs a month; this increase means that the cost of these prescriptions rose by almost $240 between the first quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. The study by Families USA confirmed the AARP's findings.


    It's no coincidence that there was a surge in drug prices earlier this year. The pharmaceutical industry purposefully raised the prices shortly before the new Medicare part D drug program, which provides prescription drug benefits to seniors, took effect.
    http://www.globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=7520

    The United States Congress is poised to approve an international trade agreement that could have the effect of thwarting a goal pursued by many lawmakers of both parties: the import of inexpensive prescription drugs to help millions of Americans without health insurance.
    The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush Administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent imports of drugs to the US and also to challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be covered by the country's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the prices paid for them and how they can be used.
    It represents the Administration's model for strengthening the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy countries, where the biggest profits can be made.
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?from=storylhs

    Fair price and fair trading is one thing an oligarchy and monopoly are quite another.
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from gwenith
    Sorry Timothy but as a member of the "rest of the word" and particularly one that the drug companies have been screaming about undercutting the profit margin - I do take exception to this.

    1) Australia and the Australian goverment funds a great deal of drug research - see the new papilloma virus vaccine as an example, but it is not just Australia that is researching new drugs.

    2) They do not "recoup the cost on the American people". This is a fallacy that I for one would love to see supported by fact. Many of the drug companies that are supplying below cost medicines to places like Africa are based not in the USA but in Europe.

    3) It is not neccessarily cheaper to buy drugs here - but it is subsidised by the goverment so it seems cheaper but we do pay. http://news.csu.edu.au/director/late...mplate=release

    4) Your own internal politics are more responsible for what is happening i.e.


    http://www.globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=7520



    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?from=storylhs

    Fair price and fair trading is one thing an oligarchy and monopoly are quite another.
    Oh how true!
  9. by   azhiker96
    Quote from gwenith
    2) They do not "recoup the cost on the American people". This is a fallacy that I for one would love to see supported by fact. Many of the drug companies that are supplying below cost medicines to places like Africa are based not in the USA but in Europe.


    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?from=storylhs
    Great article, here's an excerpt;

    Administration officials oppose legalising imports of inexpensive prescription drugs, citing safety concerns. Instead, with strong backing from the pharmaceutical industry, they have said they want to raise the price of drugs overseas to spread the burden of research and development borne disproportionately by the US.
    It should be so simple, just require the drug manufacturers to sell drugs at the same price worldwide. If a government wants to support cheap drugs for a country, they can foot the bill.
    I have no problem with allowing cheaper drugs from overseas into the US as long as they've passed the required FDA testing and they're not violating copyrights/patents.
    Last edit by azhiker96 on Aug 20, '06
  10. by   kadokin
    Quote from azhiker96
    We pay that because our government thinks it's important to fund research into new drugs. We also get a RETURN on the money spent in the form of licensing fees.

    According to an article in Mother Earth News the royalty paid to NIH for Taxol is 0.5 percent, about $8M in 2000. Now I don't know if that pays back the investment in 10 years, 5 years, or 6 months but that return needs to be considered before people make assertions that all of the research dollars are a gift to the phamaceutical companies.

    I support our government targeting research dollars into drugs. I also think they need to make sure they get a fair return with licensing fees. The problem I see with the detractors is they don't consider the whole process and instead sensationalize the research as a giveaway. Even if the government had zero royalties they could have a net gain from better treatment for it's citizens, better outcomes, and less hospitalization costs.
    Pharmaceutical companies pay a royalty to NIH??? I did not know this. Man, what a great website. Tell me more.
  11. by   azhiker96
    Quote from kadokin
    Pharmaceutical companies pay a royalty to NIH??? I did not know this. Man, what a great website. Tell me more.
    They do although in this case, the amount paid seems small compared to the value of the drug. Here's an article to check out.

    Here's an excerpt,
    According to the report, NIH spent a total of $483 million on paclitaxel research--$183 million from 1977 to 1997 (the end of the original CRADA) and $301 million from 1998 to 2002. NIH also reportedly spent $96 million on clinical trials.
    For its part, BMS says it spent $1 billion on Taxol development. This figure includes an offset payment of $16 million to NIH for clinical trials and an estimated $92 million in paclitaxel supplied to NIH for trials and research, the report says. BMS also paid NIH $35 million in royalties through 2002. These figures indicate that the partnership was worth $143 million to NIH.



    The NIH does dispute some of the figures and claims the agreement was worth $202 million but why quibble over a few tens of millions of dollars. If Congress wants to invest that money for the health of Americans, that's their decision. I just know I wouldn't want them representing me in negotiations.:wink2:

close