truman Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Both you and Obelix have a point, but can I return you to the title of this rant. I was not targeting pharmacuetical companies in particular, although that's what it seems to have turned into. Your first line was about an expensive drug.....I'm not sure why you've changed tack now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 What about the fact that pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research? Drug companies are bent, no two ways about it. They bring out a new drug and literally push it onto doctors through untrained reps that have no medical training. It's a very corrupt industry. This I agree with, but it still costs billions to develop new drugs. Stopping aggressive marketing techniques would be a start, but ultimately the costs of developing the drugs still needs to be covered at some point. What would your solution be? Cuba has developed one drug in 25 years. One. And it will have cost similar amounts to what private companies spend. This money will have been for by tax payers in Cuba. Now that's fine but if you want to do that for all new drugs we'd need to cover a lot more than just 1 drug in 25 years! There have been thousands of new products released over the last 25 years, so lets say you want us to pay for that, even at 1000 new drugs we'd be looking a tax payer bill of £2T. Our total NHS bill over the last 25 years inflation adjusted is around £75b per year. So 25 x £75b is £1.875T or less than the amount of money you want to spend on developing new drugs alone. I'm sure you could look into those costs and say that half of that money is spent on new drugs that we'd now get for free, but even then we'd still be at a net loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Your first line was about an expensive drug.....I'm not sure why you've changed tack now.. It was the figure of £353,000 for one course of treatment that grabbed my attention. The medical industry is just one of a growing trend that seems able to pluck figures out of the air because they can get away with it. There are plenty of others. We never seem to get a break down of the figures. Until we start insisting on a breakdown, I think SgtKate is right, corruption can flourish. Edited June 4, 2015 by Anna B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 It was the figure of £353,000 for one course of treatment that grabbed my attention. The medical industry is just one of a growing trend that seems able to pluck figures out of the air because they can get away with it. There are plenty of others. We never seem to get a break down of the figures. Until we start insisting on a breakdown, I think SgtKate is right, corruption can flourish. You've taken an isolated figure, with no understanding of the pricing model or the costs of bringing drugs to market, you've assumed that high prices are a new thing, and invented a whole problem based on all these assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 It was the figure of £353,000 for one course of treatment that grabbed my attention. The medical industry is just one of a growing trend that seems able to pluck figures out of the air because they can get away with it. There are plenty of others. We never seem to get a break down of the figures. Until we start insisting on a breakdown, I think SgtKate is right, corruption can flourish. What if that is the correct price for the drug? What if that is actually how much the compound has cost to develop and market etc? Are you saying that these new drugs shouldn't be researched and produced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 What if that is the correct price for the drug? What if that is actually how much the compound has cost to develop and market etc? Are you saying that these new drugs shouldn't be researched and produced? I'm pretty sure no one grasps figures out of thin air. They will price according to costs of production and supply & demand of similar drugs and ensure the opportunity cost to the buyer isntntoo high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 This I agree with, but it still costs billions to develop new drugs. Stopping aggressive marketing techniques would be a start, but ultimately the costs of developing the drugs still needs to be covered at some point. What would your solution be? Cuba has developed one drug in 25 years. One. And it will have cost similar amounts to what private companies spend. This money will have been for by tax payers in Cuba. Now that's fine but if you want to do that for all new drugs we'd need to cover a lot more than just 1 drug in 25 years! There have been thousands of new products released over the last 25 years, so lets say you want us to pay for that, even at 1000 new drugs we'd be looking a tax payer bill of £2T. Our total NHS bill over the last 25 years inflation adjusted is around £75b per year. So 25 x £75b is £1.875T or less than the amount of money you want to spend on developing new drugs alone. I'm sure you could look into those costs and say that half of that money is spent on new drugs that we'd now get for free, but even then we'd still be at a net loss. I think the pharmaceutical industry should be a none profit industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 It was the figure of £353,000 for one course of treatment that grabbed my attention. The medical industry is just one of a growing trend that seems able to pluck figures out of the air because they can get away with it. There are plenty of others. We never seem to get a break down of the figures. Until we start insisting on a breakdown, I think SgtKate is right, corruption can flourish. I'm not sure what you issue is here - you've had it explained many times why some drugs cost a lot of money yet still you flap about and say "it's too much" The drugs market is competitive - there are a lot of players with competeing products that drive costs down. They don't "get away with it" as if it costs too much NICE will just say they are not buying it - as happens regularly. In that case they get nothing at all. Why should they have to produce figures out the air? What about all the other expensive things that the State buys like trains from Hitatchi? Aircraft from BAE systems? We don't see people demanding to know why a Eurofighter costs £125 million each. They don't cost that to produce - they cost about a tenth of that but the development costs are astronomically high and it is rolled into the unit cost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I think the pharmaceutical industry should be a none profit industry.Economics 101: no profit to be made = no innovation drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I think the pharmaceutical industry should be a none profit industry. Why would they bother then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now