3 ms·
I don’t understand how comparing it to the GDP of small foreign countries adds context. The important context is what I stated: it’s about $300 per person. That
by mikeash 9y ago
I don’t understand how comparing it to the GDP of small foreign countries adds context. The important context is what I stated: it’s about $300 per person. That means that it’s a very small portion of our ~$10,000/year per capita health care expenditures. Anyone who knows how much their health insurance costs per year can immediately see how much of that funds their share of pharma R&D. The answer will almost always be “not very much.”
- rayiner 9y agoPharmaceutical expenditures are about $1,000 per capita. Turning $1,000 of revenue into $300 in R&D compares very favorably to other tech industries.
- kirubakaran 9y agoAccording to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... it is close to $10k, not $1k.
- AnthonyMouse 9y agoThat is total healthcare expenditures including things like doctor/nurse/lab tech salaries, medical devices, administrative overhead, etc. The amount spent on pharma is ~$1K per capita.
- mikeash 9y agoI’m not sure how that’s related. My point is that pharma R&D is not a significant cause of high insurance premiums or high health care costs in general.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago> My point is that pharma R&D is not a significant cause of high insurance premiums or high health care costs in general. It's the same issue across the industry. There are patents on medical devices, diagnostic tests, imaging equipment, etc. It's a major source of costs. And nobody is claiming that it's the only one.
- mikeash 9y agoPharma R&D itself is not a major source of costs. It’s around 2-3%. Sure, you could potentially make an improvement there, but its role in our massive health care costs is vastly overstated.