6 ms·

I only regret that I have but one vote to give for bringing this comment out of the gray (apologies to Nathan Hale). And, I would add: talent, on average, goe

by dhimes 14y ago

I only regret that I have but one vote to give for bringing this comment out of the gray (apologies to Nathan Hale). And, I would add: talent, on average, goes where the money is. We've seen it in sports, and it's true in academic pursuits. Plus, it takes a helluva lot of money to get these drugs to market. Nobody gives that money to a company without a fair shot of getting it back. Hence, for the time being anyway, patents are a requirement in that field.

ctoth 14y ago
I would like to discuss this claim that it takes a lot of money to bring a drug to market, and this is why drugs are currently so expensive. This seems to be common wisdom in this thread, but I note an extreme lack of actually cited sources, so I decided to go dig some up. I remember reading a book in 2004 discussing what percentage of medical industry profits went towards research and development, verses what percentage went towards marketing. While I cannot recall the title (I have read thousands of books since then), the idea did stick with me, and a bit of quick Googling produced some results: First, and perhaps most shocking: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 Here is a copy of this research without the paywall: http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.pdf http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.... According to the pop-sci summary of this article in the HufPo, what these numbers translate to is that Pharma companies spend 19 times as much on self-promotion as they do basic research: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-comp... If you assert that drugs are so expensive because of the cost to develop them, and yet I have demonstrated that the R&D budget is a small percentage of the money which the drug companies are spending, do you withdraw your assertion? Given the aforementioned lack of sources in this thread I somehow doubt it. Ah: I found a review/summary of the book which originally sparked this comment. It's The Truth About the Drug Companies, and is by Marcia Angell, the first female editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. The review is available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-tru... More: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/...
- refurb 14y ago
  The author of the article you posted, Donald Light, has done a pretty poor job of supporting the numbers he has come up with. If you want to see what drugs cost to develop, just ask the scientists who develop them: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/08/09/getting_drug_research_really_really_wrong.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/08/09/getting_drug... His numbers don't even pass the sniff test. If you want to find out how much it costs to develop a new drug, there is nothing stopping you from calling a CRO and asking how much they charge for phase III trials (they are all in competition, so they'll freely give you a quote). The average cost for a phase III trial is approximately $15,000/pt/yr. 1000 patients is a pretty average size trial, so now you are at $15M for one trial and the FDA requires at least two phase III trials. And that's just the cost of phase III trials which doesn't include: phase I, phase II, manufacturing, regulatory costs, etc. Donald Light's claim that drugs cost $45M to develop is laughable and the could only come from someone with no understanding of drug development.
  - ctoth 14y ago
    I am somewhat confused by the term "article you posted" in your comment. I had believed that I had posted a variety of different articles from several different sources, one of which was written by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and presumably someone who knows how much a drug costs to develop.
    - refurb 14y ago
      The article I was referring to was the BJM article. Oh yes, I know all about Marcia Angell. She has been rallying against the pharma industry for over a decade. The link I posted also goes into some of the outrageous things she has said that are completely unsupportable. Here is another article talking about Marcia: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/14/marcia-angells-attacks-on-pharma-have-lost-all-credibility/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/14/marcia-... Does pharma do bad things? Yes! But claiming there is a pharma conspiracy to drive down "target" cholesterol levels so they can sell more drugs is laughable. It ignores all the scientific evidence (most of it NOT from pharma companies), much of it published in her the journal she works for.

by dhimes 14y ago

ctoth 14y ago

I would like to discuss this claim that it takes a lot of money to bring a drug to market, and this is why drugs are currently so expensive. This seems to be common wisdom in this thread, but I note an extreme lack of actually cited sources, so I decided to go dig some up. I remember reading a book in 2004 discussing what percentage of medical industry profits went towards research and development, verses what percentage went towards marketing. While I cannot recall the title (I have read thousands of books since then), the idea did stick with me, and a bit of quick Googling produced some results: First, and perhaps most shocking: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 Here is a copy of this research without the paywall: http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.pdf http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.... According to the pop-sci summary of this article in the HufPo, what these numbers translate to is that Pharma companies spend 19 times as much on self-promotion as they do basic research: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-comp... If you assert that drugs are so expensive because of the cost to develop them, and yet I have demonstrated that the R&D budget is a small percentage of the money which the drug companies are spending, do you withdraw your assertion? Given the aforementioned lack of sources in this thread I somehow doubt it. Ah: I found a review/summary of the book which originally sparked this comment. It's The Truth About the Drug Companies, and is by Marcia Angell, the first female editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. The review is available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-tru... More: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/...

refurb 14y ago
The author of the article you posted, Donald Light, has done a pretty poor job of supporting the numbers he has come up with. If you want to see what drugs cost to develop, just ask the scientists who develop them: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/08/09/getting_drug_research_really_really_wrong.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/08/09/getting_drug... His numbers don't even pass the sniff test. If you want to find out how much it costs to develop a new drug, there is nothing stopping you from calling a CRO and asking how much they charge for phase III trials (they are all in competition, so they'll freely give you a quote). The average cost for a phase III trial is approximately $15,000/pt/yr. 1000 patients is a pretty average size trial, so now you are at $15M for one trial and the FDA requires at least two phase III trials. And that's just the cost of phase III trials which doesn't include: phase I, phase II, manufacturing, regulatory costs, etc. Donald Light's claim that drugs cost $45M to develop is laughable and the could only come from someone with no understanding of drug development.
- ctoth 14y ago
  I am somewhat confused by the term "article you posted" in your comment. I had believed that I had posted a variety of different articles from several different sources, one of which was written by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and presumably someone who knows how much a drug costs to develop.
  - refurb 14y ago
    The article I was referring to was the BJM article. Oh yes, I know all about Marcia Angell. She has been rallying against the pharma industry for over a decade. The link I posted also goes into some of the outrageous things she has said that are completely unsupportable. Here is another article talking about Marcia: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/14/marcia-angells-attacks-on-pharma-have-lost-all-credibility/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/14/marcia-... Does pharma do bad things? Yes! But claiming there is a pharma conspiracy to drive down "target" cholesterol levels so they can sell more drugs is laughable. It ignores all the scientific evidence (most of it NOT from pharma companies), much of it published in her the journal she works for.