3 ms·
While true, there is more money going in executive compensation / stock than into research. So there is plenty of space for lower prices. Plenty.
by oaiey 3y ago
While true, there is more money going in executive compensation / stock than into research.
So there is plenty of space for lower prices. Plenty.
- jlebar 3y agoCitation needed? Here's the 2023 report from Roche, which owns Genentech. https://assets.roche.com/f/176343/x/0ef2047502/ar23-roche-holdings-inc.pdf https://assets.roche.com/f/176343/x/0ef2047502/ar23-roche-ho... Page 17 shows that R&D costs for pharma is 10-20x larger than equity-based compensation. That's all stock-based compensation, for execs and regular people. Your claim is that it's the opposite.
- refurb 3y agoThat’s absurd and you just made it up. Easily verified through public info. Take Pfizer, R&D is $11B. You think executive comp is more than $11B? The CEO total comp is $24M or 2%. The exec team is less than 10 people. At least try to make believable claims.
- gruez 3y agoHe's probably referring to this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39405547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39405547 that made the rounds a few weeks ago, and bungled the meaning ("executive compensation / stock" rather than "executives and stockholders than on R&D").
- oaiey 3y agoCorrect. I see this from the perspective of the society overall. I do not care whether the money goes to the CEO, a mid-level executive, a sales rep or the stock divident/buyback etc. What matters is how much money from the dollar I spend on a drug goes to research and how much into cost of production. Every other cent is something which has to be under scrutiny like is any tax dollar. Healthcare is like water, food, and shelter an elementary human need. Excessive profiteering or waste on it is just wrong.