3 ms·

R&D costs are more than covered by the price paid in Canada and indeed most nations; the US is merely funding massive pharma profit margins and fat executive bo

R&D costs are more than covered by the price paid in Canada and indeed most nations; the US is merely funding massive pharma profit margins and fat executive bonuses.

microcolonel 7y ago
> R&D costs are more than covered by the price paid in Canada and indeed most nations And you would know... how?
- llukas 7y ago
  big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.f9dd0ca251de https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D: So what? They clearly believe the marketing helps them make more revenue with the drug; that has nothing to do with covering the cost of R&D. Your argument would make sense if marketing reduced their ROI, but they clearly believe it does the opposite. I'm sure developers in San Francisco spend more on housing than on professional/personal development, but that doesn't mean one is precluding the other.
    - sprafa 7y ago
      I think it demonstrates pharma has excess cash. Also in countries where there’s a public system pharma usually has 0 advertising because people have no choice anyway.
      - chimeracoder 7y ago
        > I think it demonstrates pharma has excess cash. It's only "excess cash" if you assume the ROI on marketing is negative, which is a bold and unsubstantiated claim. > Also in countries where there’s a public system pharma usually has 0 advertising because people have no choice anyway. Direct-to-consumer advertising is only one tiny portion of marketing. European pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on marketing within Europe.
        sprafa 7y ago
        Why does RÓI have to be negative? Do you think that if marketing has good ROI then whatever money they put in they get back, meaning it creates a positive circle? Am I getting this right?
  - credit_guy 7y ago
    I can't read your link as it's behind a paywall. But here's one with unrestricted access [1]: big pharma spends in average 17% of their revenue on R&D, while Apple spends 3%. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-drug-companys-spending-allocated-research-and-development-average.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru... Edit Here's another link that states the average for Big Pharma for 2018 was 20% [2] https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/top-10-pharma-r-d-budgets-2018 https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/top-10-pharma-r...

R&D costs are more than covered by the price paid in Canada and indeed most nations; the US is merely funding massive pharma profit margins and fat executive bonuses.

microcolonel 7y ago

> R&D costs are more than covered by the price paid in Canada and indeed most nations And you would know... how?

llukas 7y ago
big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.f9dd0ca251de https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D: So what? They clearly believe the marketing helps them make more revenue with the drug; that has nothing to do with covering the cost of R&D. Your argument would make sense if marketing reduced their ROI, but they clearly believe it does the opposite. I'm sure developers in San Francisco spend more on housing than on professional/personal development, but that doesn't mean one is precluding the other.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I think it demonstrates pharma has excess cash. Also in countries where there’s a public system pharma usually has 0 advertising because people have no choice anyway.
    - chimeracoder 7y ago
      > I think it demonstrates pharma has excess cash. It's only "excess cash" if you assume the ROI on marketing is negative, which is a bold and unsubstantiated claim. > Also in countries where there’s a public system pharma usually has 0 advertising because people have no choice anyway. Direct-to-consumer advertising is only one tiny portion of marketing. European pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on marketing within Europe.
      - sprafa 7y ago
        Why does RÓI have to be negative? Do you think that if marketing has good ROI then whatever money they put in they get back, meaning it creates a positive circle? Am I getting this right?
- credit_guy 7y ago
  I can't read your link as it's behind a paywall. But here's one with unrestricted access [1]: big pharma spends in average 17% of their revenue on R&D, while Apple spends 3%. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-drug-companys-spending-allocated-research-and-development-average.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru... Edit Here's another link that states the average for Big Pharma for 2018 was 20% [2] https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/top-10-pharma-r-d-budgets-2018 https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/top-10-pharma-r...