4 ms·
> the vast majority of costs in getting a new drug onto the market Debatable. > according to these firms' annual reports, 16 percent of revenues was taken as
by WalterSear 2y ago
> the vast majority of costs in getting a new drug onto the market
Debatable.
> according to these firms' annual reports, 16 percent of revenues was taken as profit, and • 31 percent went for marketing and administration. That's nearly three times as much as their R&D spending.
https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2015/05/Pharmaceutical-Marketing-and-Research-Spending-APHA-21-Oct-01.pdf https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2015/05/Pharmaceutical-Marketin...
- Auracle 2y agoMarketing gets them more money, which then increases the amount they can put into R&D. They aren’t spending on marketing without expecting a return.
- sethammons 2y agoThey shouldn't make tv ads; they should be in a white paper that doctors read.
- Auracle 2y agoMaybe, but even people with chronic conditions might not go to doctors often. They see an ad for a new medicine for their disease, they go to the doctor, it works better, and hooray. Maybe doctors should be able to send out email blasts to people, but I'm guessing that's not HIPAA friendly. Also, I've had online ads aimed at oncologists served to me for different medications. I think the fact that there are both TV ads for cancer medications and online ads aimed at oncologists says a lot about the fact that a ton of doctor's aren't keeping up with what's new, even in something as critical and limited in scope as specific cancers are.
- WalterSear 2y agoR&D is still not where the vast majority of their money is spent.