5 ms·

We need to find a way to decrease the time and cost of introducing new drugs to market so we can disarm the argument these drug companies have about needing ins

We need to find a way to decrease the time and cost of introducing new drugs to market so we can disarm the argument these drug companies have about needing insane profits to fund research.

maxxxxx 10y ago
You could already disarm that argument by looking at the numbers. Pharmaceuticals as a whole are one of the most profitable industries and their spending on R&D as a percentage is not that high. They spend much more on marketing.
- coredog64 10y ago
  > They spend much more on marketing. This is my pet peeve. If you are going to regurgitate a talking point, please regurgitate the _right_ talking point. They spend more on marketing and administration. You know, useless stuff like HR, IT, etc. What company need stupid stuff like that?
  - dmuch 10y ago
    If you're going to make this complaint you should show how much companies spend on admin costs. Clearly the parent comment was making the point that they dislike that some [1] companies spend double on marketing than they do on R&D. I'm sure they also spend money on other essential services (they probably by pens), that's not all that illuminating unless you say how much. 1.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
    - refurb 10y ago
      People may be surprised, but drugs, even really good drugs, need to do some marketing. You can argue over what level of marketing is appropriate, but if you had a great drug and didn't do marketing, you'd take a huge hit to revenue. Also, pharma marketing is very human resource heavy. You need to hire reps to visit offices. That's not cheap.
      - tamana 10y ago
        I have bought thousands of products in my life, without needing a door to door Saleswoman. Why is pharma special?
        refurb 10y ago
        I would argue that the amount and detail of information you need to make a decision about a drug is an order of magnitude more than any consumer purchase. Also, doctor might be prescribing hundreds of different drugs each year and just don't have the time to keep upon the latest and greatest. I've talked to a handful of doctors who actually appreciate their sales rep. That usually happen when the rep tones down the sales routine and focuses more on helping the doctor do their job.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    My understanding is that they have a huge sales force that sells directly to doctors which then also requires a lot of admin. In any case I hope we can agree that they are highly profitable and could afford to spend more on R&D if they viewed it as worthwhile.
drakonandor 10y ago
America's prices are a subsidy for the rest of the world, whom relies on American medications that they often outright infringe ownership of. Say what you want about America, but it can't be denied that the majority of drugs in the last few decades which the world depends on has been thanks to the American government, American companies, and the American people. One way to fix the price would be simply to stop giving away our inventions for pennies, and get the rest of the world's governments to actually pay a fair price if they want to use our products.
- lhopki01 10y ago
  This argument would hold more weight if the pharmaceutical sector didn't have 17% profit margins. Only beaten by Banks, Financial Services, Shipbuilding, and Tobacco. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/... Also pharmaceutical spending on R&D is much lower than many other industries.
- jbob2000 10y ago
  Bullshit. Insulin was developed in Canada. Viagra was developed in the UK. Sure, 50% of the worlds pharma is developed in the US (as of 2010, it hovered between 30-40% until then), but most of the stuff people need has already been developed. So no, the majority of drugs that people use have not been developed by the American government.
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    The motivation for this article is the Epi-pen, so let's look at that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine_autoinjector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine_autoinjector Made in Good Old USA, based of USA Army prototypes. "But she also acknowledged that high retail prices of EpiPens in the United States effectively subsidize the cost of the devices when they are sold in Europe, at just $100 or $150. Many of the countries there have government-run health-care systems that limit drug prices charged by manufacturers, unlike the U.S." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/mylan-expands-epipen-cost-cutting-programs-after-charges-of-price-gouging.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/mylan-expands-epipen-cost-cut... Oh, look at that, looks like the rest of the world -is- taking advantage.
antisthenes 10y ago
Adrenaline was synthesized over 100 years ago. Most of Mylan's drug portfolio has come from acquisitions of other companies. They sell branded drugs that have been synthesized years ago by other people. The only R&D this company is doing is who to bribe in Congress and how to extort more money from the American public. True free markets at work.
- danielweber 10y ago
  > Most of Mylan's drug portfolio has come from acquisitions of other companies You say this like they aren't doing R&D. But the industry has just broken up into two sub-industries: the big firms who specialize in large-scale distribution, and the small firms who mostly die but some create the new successful drugs, and then get acquired.
- fckyrdumb 10y ago
  Free markets? You mean government enforced violence. True free markets would allow anyone to manufacture an epi pen copy without being sued into oblivion while having state thugs seize your property.
  - mark_edward 10y ago
    any competent entrepreneur would buy or build his own government to do this.
  - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    > True free markets would allow anyone to manufacture an epi pen copy I've had to rely on an EpiPen in the past and I am thankful that regulations exist to ensure it worked. The other recourse to make sure they worked every time would have been for me or others to die and let the free market handle the fall out.

We need to find a way to decrease the time and cost of introducing new drugs to market so we can disarm the argument these drug companies have about needing insane profits to fund research.

maxxxxx 10y ago

You could already disarm that argument by looking at the numbers. Pharmaceuticals as a whole are one of the most profitable industries and their spending on R&D as a percentage is not that high. They spend much more on marketing.

coredog64 10y ago
> They spend much more on marketing. This is my pet peeve. If you are going to regurgitate a talking point, please regurgitate the _right_ talking point. They spend more on marketing and administration. You know, useless stuff like HR, IT, etc. What company need stupid stuff like that?
- dmuch 10y ago
  If you're going to make this complaint you should show how much companies spend on admin costs. Clearly the parent comment was making the point that they dislike that some [1] companies spend double on marketing than they do on R&D. I'm sure they also spend money on other essential services (they probably by pens), that's not all that illuminating unless you say how much. 1.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
  - refurb 10y ago
    People may be surprised, but drugs, even really good drugs, need to do some marketing. You can argue over what level of marketing is appropriate, but if you had a great drug and didn't do marketing, you'd take a huge hit to revenue. Also, pharma marketing is very human resource heavy. You need to hire reps to visit offices. That's not cheap.
    - tamana 10y ago
      I have bought thousands of products in my life, without needing a door to door Saleswoman. Why is pharma special?
      - refurb 10y ago
        I would argue that the amount and detail of information you need to make a decision about a drug is an order of magnitude more than any consumer purchase. Also, doctor might be prescribing hundreds of different drugs each year and just don't have the time to keep upon the latest and greatest. I've talked to a handful of doctors who actually appreciate their sales rep. That usually happen when the rep tones down the sales routine and focuses more on helping the doctor do their job.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  My understanding is that they have a huge sales force that sells directly to doctors which then also requires a lot of admin. In any case I hope we can agree that they are highly profitable and could afford to spend more on R&D if they viewed it as worthwhile.

drakonandor 10y ago

America's prices are a subsidy for the rest of the world, whom relies on American medications that they often outright infringe ownership of. Say what you want about America, but it can't be denied that the majority of drugs in the last few decades which the world depends on has been thanks to the American government, American companies, and the American people. One way to fix the price would be simply to stop giving away our inventions for pennies, and get the rest of the world's governments to actually pay a fair price if they want to use our products.

lhopki01 10y ago
This argument would hold more weight if the pharmaceutical sector didn't have 17% profit margins. Only beaten by Banks, Financial Services, Shipbuilding, and Tobacco. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/... Also pharmaceutical spending on R&D is much lower than many other industries.
jbob2000 10y ago
Bullshit. Insulin was developed in Canada. Viagra was developed in the UK. Sure, 50% of the worlds pharma is developed in the US (as of 2010, it hovered between 30-40% until then), but most of the stuff people need has already been developed. So no, the majority of drugs that people use have not been developed by the American government.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  The motivation for this article is the Epi-pen, so let's look at that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine_autoinjector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine_autoinjector Made in Good Old USA, based of USA Army prototypes. "But she also acknowledged that high retail prices of EpiPens in the United States effectively subsidize the cost of the devices when they are sold in Europe, at just $100 or $150. Many of the countries there have government-run health-care systems that limit drug prices charged by manufacturers, unlike the U.S." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/mylan-expands-epipen-cost-cutting-programs-after-charges-of-price-gouging.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/mylan-expands-epipen-cost-cut... Oh, look at that, looks like the rest of the world -is- taking advantage.

antisthenes 10y ago

Adrenaline was synthesized over 100 years ago. Most of Mylan's drug portfolio has come from acquisitions of other companies. They sell branded drugs that have been synthesized years ago by other people. The only R&D this company is doing is who to bribe in Congress and how to extort more money from the American public. True free markets at work.

danielweber 10y ago
> Most of Mylan's drug portfolio has come from acquisitions of other companies You say this like they aren't doing R&D. But the industry has just broken up into two sub-industries: the big firms who specialize in large-scale distribution, and the small firms who mostly die but some create the new successful drugs, and then get acquired.
fckyrdumb 10y ago
Free markets? You mean government enforced violence. True free markets would allow anyone to manufacture an epi pen copy without being sued into oblivion while having state thugs seize your property.
- mark_edward 10y ago
  any competent entrepreneur would buy or build his own government to do this.
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  > True free markets would allow anyone to manufacture an epi pen copy I've had to rely on an EpiPen in the past and I am thankful that regulations exist to ensure it worked. The other recourse to make sure they worked every time would have been for me or others to die and let the free market handle the fall out.