4 ms·

Just a quick googling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research

by adwf 12y ago

Just a quick googling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/11/b... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28212223 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28212223 Reading the BBC article reminded me of all the fines also. People are paying extra because drug companies push off-label uses on consumers and then get fined for it. It's not like the company really pays, they just up their prices a bit and push it onto the consumer. That sort of off-label usage doesn't happen in the UK so much, because doctors don't have any incentive to prescribe anything other than the NHS approved drug for a condition.

maxerickson 12y ago
So here's the financial segment of Johnson and Johnson's 2013 annual report: http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/sites/2013annualreport.jnj.com/files/2013_Johnson_Johnson_Annual_Report_Audited_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/sites/2013annualreport.jnj.c... (linked from here: http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/financials http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/financials ) In one place, it says this: Advertising Costs associated with advertising are expensed in the year incurred and are included in selling, marketing and administrative expenses. Advertising expenses worldwide, which comprised television, radio, print media and Internet advertising, were $2.5 billion, $2.3 billion and $2.6 billion in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. That advertising number most likely does not include money they spend directly marketing to doctors and so on. So the Global Data report referenced by the BBC implies they are spending $15 billion directly marketing to doctors and other medical people/organizations. The next step would be to figure out what they are spending paying employees (with 120,000 of them, quite a lot), but I can't find good numbers on that.
ptaipale 12y ago
"Marketing drugs to doctors" is not exactly the same as "total sales and marketing budget". I don't even know if "cost of sales" includes the cost of regulatory approvals in various countries. Also note that there is not necessarily anything bad about off-label use of medicines. Medicines could be off-label simply for the reason that the regulator - out of pressure from the public health insurer, or more bluntly just the Department of Treasury in the country - does not approve using a medicine for some purpose, even though it is known to be efficient and without bad side effects. In fact, in some cases patients are complaining bitterly because they cannot get the medicine that their doctor knows would help them, because their regulators do not approve off-label use.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Off-label use is scary because there is often no evidence base. You have doctors prescribing meds because they "know it works". When we look at popular off-label meds and the eventual evidence we often find that they're not very useful, or even actively harmful.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    A medicine can also be off-label simply because of its price - there is evidence base, but the regulator says that the health care system shouldn't pay this much for ailing this medical condition. Of course that keeps the prices lower. That's the purpose. It also keeps some medication unavailable for some patients. I don't think it's a huge problem, but it's there.

by adwf 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

So here's the financial segment of Johnson and Johnson's 2013 annual report: http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/sites/2013annualreport.jnj.com/files/2013_Johnson_Johnson_Annual_Report_Audited_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/sites/2013annualreport.jnj.c... (linked from here: http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/financials http://2013annualreport.jnj.com/financials ) In one place, it says this: Advertising Costs associated with advertising are expensed in the year incurred and are included in selling, marketing and administrative expenses. Advertising expenses worldwide, which comprised television, radio, print media and Internet advertising, were $2.5 billion, $2.3 billion and $2.6 billion in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. That advertising number most likely does not include money they spend directly marketing to doctors and so on. So the Global Data report referenced by the BBC implies they are spending $15 billion directly marketing to doctors and other medical people/organizations. The next step would be to figure out what they are spending paying employees (with 120,000 of them, quite a lot), but I can't find good numbers on that.

ptaipale 12y ago

"Marketing drugs to doctors" is not exactly the same as "total sales and marketing budget". I don't even know if "cost of sales" includes the cost of regulatory approvals in various countries. Also note that there is not necessarily anything bad about off-label use of medicines. Medicines could be off-label simply for the reason that the regulator - out of pressure from the public health insurer, or more bluntly just the Department of Treasury in the country - does not approve using a medicine for some purpose, even though it is known to be efficient and without bad side effects. In fact, in some cases patients are complaining bitterly because they cannot get the medicine that their doctor knows would help them, because their regulators do not approve off-label use.

DanBC 12y ago
Off-label use is scary because there is often no evidence base. You have doctors prescribing meds because they "know it works". When we look at popular off-label meds and the eventual evidence we often find that they're not very useful, or even actively harmful.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  A medicine can also be off-label simply because of its price - there is evidence base, but the regulator says that the health care system shouldn't pay this much for ailing this medical condition. Of course that keeps the prices lower. That's the purpose. It also keeps some medication unavailable for some patients. I don't think it's a huge problem, but it's there.