3 ms·

You seem to be implying the advertising costs are a significant driver of the price for drugs. They are not. The significant driver of the cost in drug is the d

You seem to be implying the advertising costs are a significant driver of the price for drugs. They are not. The significant driver of the cost in drug is the development costs, including the cost of the many failures along the way. Also, in general and not specific to this case, the prices need to targeted high enough to encourage investors to invest in the first place. If prices are not set at a sufficient premium to offset the volatility and risk, in the future investors will realize biomedical research is a poor investment and put their money in less socially beneficial investments like Facebook.

AlbertCory 2y ago
> You seem to be implying the advertising costs are a significant driver No, I'm not. That's in your mind. The advertising costs can be justified by their return. Business 101.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Ok good, thanks. I just wanted to clarify that point for other readers. As an aside, as someone who works in the life sciences field, I’m a bit conflicted about advertising new therapeutics. I see why it is an often necessary practice in order to raise awareness among potential patients. On the other hand, in an ideal world, primary care physicians would be up on the latest therapies and recommend them to their patients as appropriate. Sadly, that is not always the case.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Good, I thought we were about to have a flame war there. People are so accustomed to everything having an ideological point that they infer one if you don't say it. Putting myself in the place of the doctor: if I say "hey, there's this new drug Bimzelx!" and then I have to tell the patient what it costs, I can imagine being happy to wait until THEY bring it up. Of course, if they just ask "are there any drugs for this?" I'd be duty-bound to answer.

3 ms·

You seem to be implying the advertising costs are a significant driver of the price for drugs. They are not. The significant driver of the cost in drug is the d

by BenFranklin100 2y ago

AlbertCory 2y ago
> You seem to be implying the advertising costs are a significant driver No, I'm not. That's in your mind. The advertising costs can be justified by their return. Business 101.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Ok good, thanks. I just wanted to clarify that point for other readers. As an aside, as someone who works in the life sciences field, I’m a bit conflicted about advertising new therapeutics. I see why it is an often necessary practice in order to raise awareness among potential patients. On the other hand, in an ideal world, primary care physicians would be up on the latest therapies and recommend them to their patients as appropriate. Sadly, that is not always the case.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Good, I thought we were about to have a flame war there. People are so accustomed to everything having an ideological point that they infer one if you don't say it. Putting myself in the place of the doctor: if I say "hey, there's this new drug Bimzelx!" and then I have to tell the patient what it costs, I can imagine being happy to wait until THEY bring it up. Of course, if they just ask "are there any drugs for this?" I'd be duty-bound to answer.