4 ms·
I’m not sure that assertion is borne out by the data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602
by heisenzombie 7y ago
I’m not sure that assertion is borne out by the data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/
I think two big missing factors in your analysis are (1) profit — US drug companies pocketed something around $30 billion dollars this year, and (2) inefficiency - something like $20 billion dollars went into deg marketing in the US for example, which seems to me like almost a complete waste.
- refurb 7y agoJust measuring profit ignores all the companies who went under because their drug didn’t work. You’re just counting the winners. And marketing includes things like paying a sales rep to answer doctors questions. Are you saying they shouldn’t do that.
- Symmetry 7y agoI was under the impression that the biggest driver of marketing costs for drugs was providing free samples of the drug to doctors, with training doctors coming second and advertisements a distant third.
- refurb 7y agoDepends on the drug and the market. Not all drug have a free sample program, but yes, it can add up since they account for the full price, not cost of goods. Personnel can be a big chunk as well, since the fully loaded cost of a sales rep can be $400k per year and for primary care drugs, it’s not unusual to have 1,000 reps.