Just_A_Guy Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Article here.I had no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Article here.I had no idea.This was actually covered in my Advanced Engineering Economics Analysis class in grad school.That's why I believe Universal Healthcare in the US is not going to work as it is going to stifle new development. Big pharma, as it is now, is only surviving because of their strong lobbying activities in Congress. Pharma lobbies are bad, in my opinion, but it's really their only defense against tight price regulations - for example, the law on generics, the law on providing new drugs to 3rd world countries at a very low price, etc.My dad, for example, is in a clinical trial for this cancer drug called Avastin. My work-mate's mother was on this same clinical trial over 10 years ago. They've been running clinical trials on this one drug for over 15 years even after they've released a version of it out to market at a price of about $2,000 a pop. The cost of the R&D for just this one drug is ginormous (and it's still growing). And that doesn't count the other cancer treatment versions that failed trials... and then the generics are about to just usurp the market share leaving the original R&D company in the dust. And then there are those who are selling Avastin in the black market from mandatory 3rd world country supplies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applepansy Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 What is really scary is it doesn't have to be this way. Drugs that should be approved aren't and drugs that should never be approved are. Often I wonder how much of the money spent is bribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshac Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 What is really scary is it doesn't have to be this way. Drugs that should be approved aren't and drugs that should never be approved are. Often I wonder how much of the money spent is bribes.... care to name which drugs aren't approved that should be? If there is some metric of safety/efficacy that isn't currently being used, i'm sure the FDA would like to hear about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierGuy Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 You are going to take the words of guy who works IN the business? lol. Tell all this to the Canadians, British, and Europeans who will all say - Our universal healthcare is not perfect, but we sure would not give it up! It's only the U.S. Americans that are fooled into our current healthcare system. Get sick, and you are forced to sale your home, cars, possessions. Get sick, and you have to pick - pay your electric bill or buy a few weeks of medication that keeps you alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshac Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 You are going to take the words of guy who works IN the business? lol. Tell all this to the Canadians, British, and Europeans who will all say - Our universal healthcare is not perfect, but we sure would not give it up! It's only the U.S. Americans that are fooled into our current healthcare system. Get sick, and you are forced to sale your home, cars, possessions. Get sick, and you have to pick - pay your electric bill or buy a few weeks of medication that keeps you alive.This isn't about the delivery of healthcare, but rather the R&D/approval of new drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 This isn't about the delivery of healthcare, but rather the R&D/approval of new drugs.I am not so sure they are not connected. If a business, pharmaceutical in this case, has high costs it is figured into the cost of providing that product or service. The delivery of health services, including meds, is paid for by insurance of one kind or other in many cases. That insurance is paid for by the consumer who wants a health program they can afford. If the insurance costs are too high then the consumer has to look for an alternative program to get health care 'delivered' so yes the high cost of pharmaceuticals, caused in large part by the approval process, is very connected to health programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshac Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 I am not so sure they are not connected. If a business, pharmaceutical in this case, has high costs it is figured into the cost of providing that product or service. The delivery of health services, including meds, is paid for by insurance of one kind or other in many cases. That insurance is paid for by the consumer who wants a health program they can afford. If the insurance costs are too high then the consumer has to look for an alternative program to get health care 'delivered' so yes the high cost of pharmaceuticals, caused in large part by the approval process, is very connected to health programs.It doesn't matter if the delivery of the healthcare is socialized or not- the topic was about the high cost of bringing a drug to market since each 'successful' drug that is approved has to cover the R&D costs of all the failures that came before it. In the end, it's still expensive regardless of who pays. This has nothing to do with R&D, but about med costs in a socialized system in general...arguably there are many drugs that cost too much and provide too little benefit for a socialized system to support- the $50k/mo prostate cancer drug that extends life by about two months is invaluable to the person (and family) receiving it, but for the greater society where money is a scarce resource, $100k can pay for a lot of primary care visits, setting of broken bones, or even a few surgeries. In the US, we seem to have a hard time reconciling the situation of medical costs in a world of finite resources, and until we come to terms with this fact, a socialized system can't work. Take medicare for example- i'm sure we all remember the mud slinging and accusations about 'rationing' medicine, 'death panels', and throwing grandma off a cliff... clearly we can't yet have an adult conversation about the facts of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 It doesn't matter if the delivery of the healthcare is socialized or not- the topic was about the high cost of bringing a drug to market since each 'successful' drug that is approved has to cover the R&D costs of all the failures that came before it. In the end, it's still expensive regardless of who pays. This has nothing to do with R&D, but about med costs in a socialized system in general...arguably there are many drugs that cost too much and provide too little benefit for a socialized system to support- the $50k/mo prostate cancer drug that extends life by about two months is invaluable to the person (and family) receiving it, but for the greater society where money is a scarce resource, $100k can pay for a lot of primary care visits, setting of broken bones, or even a few surgeries. In the US, we seem to have a hard time reconciling the situation of medical costs in a world of finite resources, and until we come to terms with this fact, a socialized system can't work. Take medicare for example- i'm sure we all remember the mud slinging and accusations about 'rationing' medicine, 'death panels', and throwing grandma off a cliff... clearly we can't yet have an adult conversation about the facts of life.No doubt in large part because of the lack of knowledge of what comes after death. If more knew then maybe they wouldnt be so desperate for another month of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 No doubt in large part because of the lack of knowledge of what comes after death. If more knew then maybe they wouldnt be so desperate for another month of life.More likely that people wouldn't take the meds if they knew the expected outcome of taking the meds. It's very often that they are just told to take the drug without the explanation that the expected extension of life is only two months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshac Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 More likely that people wouldn't take the meds if they knew the expected outcome of taking the meds. It's very often that they are just told to take the drug without the explanation that the expected extension of life is only two months.I'm not so sure about that- most of the expensive new drugs are biologics and as a result fall into a different category for most folk's insurance pharmacy benefit- usually with MUCH higher copays if it's even covered at all (some people do pay out of pocket). I would like to hope that all physicians counsel their patients on their therapy and make decisions governing their care together... so they should be aware that these costly drugs are usually used to extend lives- not cure the disease. I found a NY times article that talks about some of the prostate cancer drugs and their costs-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/health/28prostate.htmlIn the case of biologics, I can partly appreciate the high costs associated with the drugs- these antibiodies (-zumab, -umab, -omab drugs) are produced in minute quantities, so it takes a LOT of resources to produce even a single dose- it's not pure price gouging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 You are going to take the words of guy who works IN the business? lol. If Pfizer or Merck say they spend x billion dollars per year in R&D, those numbers are going to be closely scrutinized by the IRS, the SEC, and a host of other regulatory agencies--both for their own sake (more R&D = less taxable income and less investor return), and because they point to a conclusion that contradicts the Executive Branch's current chosen policy.But so far, I don't see any federal agency taking serious issues with the numbers posited in the OP. That silence may itself be instructive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.