4 ms·
That would be worth exploring, but the cost of developing a drug is astronomically high: "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at
by chaz 13y ago
That would be worth exploring, but the cost of developing a drug is astronomically high: "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion." http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tru.... The most expensive part is Phase III Clinical Trials, and it's growing: "We examined drug development in four major public health areas and discovered that for any given drug on the market, typically 90 percent or more of that drug’s development costs are incurred in Phase III trials." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm
No university or nonprofit has that kind of budget, and even if they did, they are unlikely to take on the risk of a failed drug.
- henrikschroder 13y agoPharmaceutical companies typically spend more money on advertising than drug development which leads me to think that the patent system isn't that necessary to the overall profitability.
- Panoramix 13y agoThat would be a strong argument if you would provide some sort of evidence.
- jacalata 13y agoprobably referring to this from elsewhere in the thread: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
- refurb 13y agoRidiculous argument. Marketing spend is based on the idea you spend $X and get $X + Y back. This doesn't always work, but it's the general premise. This means without marketing dollars they'd be making less money.
- warfangle 13y agoOr they'd be making drugs that actually matter, instead of drugs they can market well to unassuming consumers.
- refurb 13y agoThe last time I got an Rx, the doctor actually made the decision along with my insurance company (at least how much they'd pay). So you're saying that drug advertising is pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire industry so that they give patients nothing more than placebos? Most drugs, even those that offer a benefit over current therapies, don't sell themselves. Physicians need to learn about new drugs, have an opportunity to try them before you ever see widespread use.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- chaz 13y agoWell, they're picking the drugs that they can sell the most of -- i.e. the ones that will benefit the most people. That's not a bad thing. However, the cost of human trials are still a problem. Because of the costs, drug research to treat rare diseases aren't going to get funded by anyone.
- Crito 13y agoIt really is not that simple in real life. That's a decent write-up of how advertising is supposed to work for your disruptive yet novel startup, but pharmaceuticals is a more complicated animal. Drugs are things that people "need". If no drug companies advertised, people would still go to their doctors with problems, and doctors would still prescribe medication when necessary (you have some degree of advertising prompting doctor visits, but for the important stuff, and in a system where people are not afraid of the monetary cost of going to a doctor, they'll be going anyway). However currently all drug manufacturers must advertise their products because their competitors advertise their competing products. Anyone who doesn't advertise will be left behind as patients request the drug that they saw on TV. No company wants to be the company that doesn't advertise. Advertising makes advertising necessary. It's a sort of "Advertising Prisoners Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#In_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#In_economics One way to break this is to create laws that forbid advertising. Another is to allow the formation of cartels.
- warfangle 13y agoHow much of that cost is the advertisement of the drug?
- jaekwon 13y agoConsider that the cost may be astronomically high because it's possible to make marginally more. It's entirely possible that the same level of drug research can be done for much less money. For instance, with patents there is an incentive to find a solution first. This probably raises the cost of research because (a) pharmas spend more time researching alternative medicines with different compounds with the same effect as existing drugs simply to get around pre-existing patents and (b) pharmas spend more money to rush research to patent it first. Also, if clinical trials are the problem, India appears to be willing to help.