3 ms·
> In other words, Americans are taking it in the chin to invest in pharmaceutical innovations, which other countries then treat as a public good. I completely
by dv_dt 9y ago
> In other words, Americans are taking it in the chin to invest in pharmaceutical innovations, which other countries then treat as a public good.
I completely reject this line of argument. Just because the spending is here, and that a huge profit center is in Ameriica, you can't conclude anything about R&D. A large portion of the marketing spend is also in America too.
All the large drug companies are multi-national. Once the income arrives from various nations, that money is fungible within the accounting of the company. One really can't say a pound coming in from the UK isn't funding R&D in America, any more than you could say a dollar is.
- the_watcher 9y agoWhat he's saying is that drugs are marked up more in the US than other countries that regulate their prices. That necessarily implies that Americans paying for the drug are contributing more to pharma revenues than those in countries that are regulating prescription drug prices.
- dv_dt 9y agoBut that's not necessarily true, and the statement was regarding R&D not general income. The larger income in America part can also be questioned, particularly when the revenue in the US comes also comes a large cost of marketing - which some reports say exceed the cost of R&D. The US is also one of the few nations that allows that expenditure. It seems like we're just paying to much and funding a lot of marketing and doing nothing for R&D of drugs.
- DanBC 9y agoWe could say that the medication advertising budgets in the US are huge, and that Americans experience that in increased prices.