The United States is 4% of the world's population, and produces 70% of the world's pharma profits.
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
True
But pharma companies put more $$ into marketing than they do into R&D/development.
no, they dont care about those countries or the price they get.... if the united states went to a MFN model they would drop those countries so fast its not funny. They have "leverage" because pharma knows they can get it other places without a fight
Yes; they do care.
They sell at a profit in those countries. They do not sell at a loss.
If the US negotiated likewise, those countries might see a hike to make some of the difference up.
Ask your GOP representatives why they voted AGAINST allowing the US government to negotiate on drug pricing.
See what they give you for an answer - my guess is they'll shift to a rant about trans people or open borders nonsense.
No they don't care...
Do they sell at a profit? Sure they might sell as a profit in regards to how much it costs them to make and distribute....but no they don't sell as a profit if marketing and R&D are considered. That burden is placed on the US healthcare system.
Should we ask Biden why he was against MFN model? Both parties have plenty of blame for current situation.
Yes
They would not enter into contracts with countries to sell at a loss.
They jack up pricing for Americans, because they spend so much money on advertising to Americans.
The marketing budgets dwarf the R&D budgets, AINEC.
Returning to the thread topic a bit, out of curiosity, does anyone have statistics for what percentage of profits are US-derived for industries other than pharma?
Again yes they are sold at a loss when all cost are factored in ... and its silly to think otherwise. By the time a drug hits the market most of the cost has already happen. Its better to sell a drug, that at that point in time doesnt cost much to make, for less money than no money when the rest of the money will be recouped mainly in the US.
I always find it funny when someone say "AINEC" when it is...but im sure you will find some slanted article that will have loose definitions of marketing like free drug programs or free samples... etc... that greatly increase marketing budgets to slant the data. It is actually much closer than you claim. Over the last decade or so it has been less R&D as the big companies would rather let a small biotech company find a winner then buy that winner vs doing it themselves...but still plenty of money is put in to get it to the market.
Im sure you many years in R&D with pharma though has helped you reach your conclusions.
No, they are not.
Drug companies ink agreements that provide positive income/cash flow for them.
To claim otherwise is simply nonsense.
yes they are...sorry simple math is too hard for you... if they sold all the products at that cost it would be a loss for them... i already said they will take cash flow from single payer countries as its better than none, but it does not cover total cost they put in.
They are not selling "at cost" to countries that negotiate prices; they are selling at a profit.
In America, because there is no such negotiation, they can get 10x to 100x more, and spend half that on marketing to make up for it.
If you'd like to contest the amount they spend on ads/marketing vs R&D, post your numbers. I know what typical R&D spend is - runs 3% to 6% of profits. Marketing is many times that.
Profits or revenue? Because profit would be a significantly higher percent as most companies typically spend ~20% of revenue on R&D
They are selling at a profit.
They spend far more on US marketing/sales activities than they do on R&D spend.
No go back to 3% profits spent on R&D that you stated... if they on average 20% of revenue on R&D they spend a significantly higher percentage of profits on R&D...
And do you understand what marketing entails? a lot of marketing is important for healthcare professionals.
Don't forget to explain how they spend 20... and pry closer 25% of revenue on R&D ... but only 3-6% on profits
They spend WAY more on US sales and marketing than R&D. By a wide margin.
And even more on stock buybacks.
I know that it didn't exist until Congress allowed them direct marketing to consumers.
You are confusing direct consumer marketing with what they consider marketing in the studies that say marketing is greater than R&D. Marketing includes many things including msls that go to promote but more importantly educate on new drugs... and for the most part that education really focuses on the proper use of these meds.
Direct consumer marketing is not as much as many think and has been declining over the years.
Overall marketing also includes drug samples and free drugs to consumers... sometimes those programs are a net benefit and great ( ex: dalbavancin) sometimes more just benefit for pharma like coupon cards.
No; direct consumer marketing is definitely part of "marketing"
And they spend a shit-ton on it.
Again that depends on how you define marketing... definitions aren't even standard between each company... not really an apple to apple comparison.
If you actually looked at only R&D and money used to purchase rights from smaller companies it dwarfs anything else in budgets until you group many things together
Nope.
It's all in the accounting info that is described in their financials.
You do not appear to understand how that works.
I understand it quite well and was part of it for years... direct consumer marketing is a small part of the marketing budget... some companies even have pensions included in their marketing budgets
One of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the US might put users at a higher risk of an agonizing bone disease, according to new research.
About 23 million Americans take levothyroxine, sold as Synthroid, each day, making it one of the five most widely used medications in the country.
Researchers from John Hopkins University said adults of all ages taking the drug should discuss the risks with their doctors.
They warned that many patients take Synthroid for so long that it's no longer clear why it was prescribed to begin with or even if it is still needed.
Professor Shadpour Demehri, an expert in radiology at John Hopkins University in Marylandand study co-author said: 'Our study suggests that even when following current guidelines, levothyroxine use appears to be associated with greater bone loss in older adults.'
According to 2023 research from Yale School of Medicine, about 90 percent of people who take the drug may not need it.
Dr Joe El-Khoury, a professor of laboratory medicine, who led the research said: 'Study after study has shown that there is greater risk when you overtreat with levothyroxine in patients who may not need it.' (Source: dailymail.co.uk)
About 23 million Americans take levothyroxine, sold as Synthroid, each day, making it one of the five most widely used medications in the country.
Researchers from John Hopkins University said adults of all ages taking the drug should discuss the risks with their doctors.
They warned that many patients take Synthroid for so long that it's no longer clear why it was prescribed to begin with or even if it is still needed.
Professor Shadpour Demehri, an expert in radiology at John Hopkins University in Marylandand study co-author said: 'Our study suggests that even when following current guidelines, levothyroxine use appears to be associated with greater bone loss in older adults.'
According to 2023 research from Yale School of Medicine, about 90 percent of people who take the drug may not need it.
Dr Joe El-Khoury, a professor of laboratory medicine, who led the research said: 'Study after study has shown that there is greater risk when you overtreat with levothyroxine in patients who may not need it.' (Source: dailymail.co.uk)
What have the Republicans proposed to fix this?
The Democrats have had several proposals, specifically importing Rx, which would have had a major effect on this and they were all killed by Republicans.
Interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Synthroid is a hormone used to treat thyroid disease. For those of us who suffer from it, Synthroid is literally a life saver. Because thyroid disease has so many side effects, I wonder if the bone density issue is related more to the drug, or the disease. Either way, I'll be reading up on it based on your post. Appreciate it.
...and synthroid/levo is ancient and dirt cheap. only complicated thing about it is dosing.
Why do you believe these JH researchers, but no others when it comes to meds or vaccines?
