4 ms·
> as much as 90% of the cost of a new drug is meeting FDA requirements Really? I'll take it that you're not including marketing (which is where most of the mon
by wisty 16y ago
> as much as 90% of the cost of a new drug is meeting FDA requirements
Really? I'll take it that you're not including marketing (which is where most of the money goes), as that doesn't kick in until the new drug is going to be approved.
Does that 90% include things like clinical trial, which should be done anyway?
- Symmetry 16y agoYou only have to pay for marketing for the drugs that make it through FDA trials, not the 9 others that didn't.
- anamax 16y ago> I'll take it that you're not including marketing (which is where most of the money goes), Marketing includes discount/free drugs for low-income folk, samples (which many doctors use the same way), and telling doctors what the drug does. Which of those do you want to reduce?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- CapitalistCartr 16y agoMarketing may include those things, but isn't limited to them, and much of the marketing money is spent elsewhere. It's easy to tell the drug companies are awash in money dealing with them. Not that I blame them.
- anamax 16y ago> Marketing may include those things, but isn't limited to them, and much of the marketing money is spent elsewhere. And you know this how? And where exactly? I'll assume that you're referring to ads. > It's easy to tell the drug companies are awash in money dealing with them. Oh really? I see significant ad campaigns for 4-8 drugs. Even 20 would be a small fraction of the total drug portfolio of a single company, and there are multiple companies.