4 ms·
No. Pharmaceutical revenue in europe alone can cover all r&d spending.
by rat9988 4y ago
No. Pharmaceutical revenue in europe alone can cover all r&d spending.
- oneoff786 4y agoHow could you believe that to be true? Western Europe is just 20% or so of global pharma spending. You believe that rd can continue full steam ahead with 20% revenue, dropping the most profitable part?
- otterley 4y agoEuropean Redditors apparently know everything and are quite confident of their knowledge. I enjoy waking up every day to read their insights.
- tialaramex 4y ago> You believe that rd can continue full steam ahead with 20% revenue, dropping the most profitable part? You get what you measure. Americans decided they want to measure profit and so they think their pharmaceutical companies must be working well because of how profitable they are. Sure, the people are miserable, many can't afford medication they need, but there's so much profit that means it's success right? Nope. The owner's hilltop mansion and two yachts don't actually make sick children well, or prevent heart failure or anything like that, spending on R&D is not in fact linked to company profits, instead it's necessary for these companies to survive because innovation is their lifeblood. The profits are an excess.
- junofan 4y agoOne common measure of the health of the US pharmaceutical industry is approvals per year. Objectively the current system does well on that metric relative to past models; eg the USSR’s and Japan’s.
- tialaramex 4y agoThis metric optimises for more approvable products, which still isn't the thing you actually wanted. Sixteen slightly different approved products which do basically the same thing means sixteen approvals but you only solved one actual problem. Together with favourable treatment for "new" patentable medicines compared to just using the stuff that already worked the result is an American can find their doctor has prescribed them a $1000 per month "new" drug that is basically identical to the $10 per month drug similar patients are given Free At Point Of Use in many countries for a decade, except this one has a patent and so the manufacturer gets exclusivity and $990 profit. What we actually wanted wasn't richer executives, or more approval paperwork, it was healthier people, and the US scores very badly on that.
- oneoff786 4y agoall of that “stuff that already worked” is from the the stuff that used to be new
- tialaramex 4y agoMost of the "stuff that used to be new" is long gone. Once the exclusivity expires, there's no reason to make sixteen distinct medicines that are really just a single idea smeared out to score points, so you either invent more or you go back to only supplying the thing everybody actually wanted. And there's no need for making medicines which merely "used to be new" any more profitable than say, felt tip pens or flour. I take Levothyroxine every morning (for the rest of my life) and they figured out how to synthesize that about a hundred years ago. Nobody who worked on that project is even alive still, let alone relying on some hypothetical profits from their work. But guess what, in the US it'll cost more than it does here because the US values profit for pharmaceutical executives over healthcare for its citizens.
- oneoff786 4y agoSounds nice and all until you need a novel vaccine. The whole point is that the US being profitable allows research for new drugs, not that profits aren’t high in the US. Heck, Pfizer sells stuff at cost to about pretty large portion of the world now.
- oneoff786 4y agoIf your company is not profitable then they’re losing money and will cease to exist.
- rat9988 4y agoHow much is r&d spending in big pharma? Please enlighten us. If you think I'm wrong, you are free to prove it.
- oneoff786 4y agoWell Pfizer spent $13B in 2021 https://www.statista.com/statistics/267810/expenditure-on-research-and-development-at-pfizer-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267810/expenditure-on-re... You didn’t really make a claim so I don’t know how to refute anything