Quote:
Originally posted by james t kirk
Oh really?
Read this.....
http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html
and, well, don't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Stanford University.
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases...aceutical.html
The other neat little thing the pharmaceuticals do is make a small change to a patented drug (once the patent runs out), then get a new patent for a drug that does exactly the same thing.
Pretty neat trick!!!
No, I have no faith in the big phramaceutical companies to "do the right thing", anymore than i have faith in the big oil companies to protect the environment.
|
First and foremost the first "study" you posted includes operating costs of the company under their "administration" heading. I guess the desk I sit at and the upkeep of the buildings is a "marketing expense". Secondly, they include all drug samples as a marketing expense including those drugs given away to those who can't afford to pay for them.
The Stanford study you point to simply states overall marketing expenditures and doesn't even try to compare them to R&D costs. Additionally they purposely are studying the costs of "the most promoted" drugs, do you really think that's a representative study of the industry at large?
As far as your argument around slightly changing around a patent to extend the life of it, absolutely they do it. And, in the vast majority of cases it fails miserably. Doctors, Pharmacy Benefit Managers and Managed Care Organizations aren't stupid and they know this and write and fill prescriptions accordingly.
Drug prices are a minor component in healthcare costs and an even smaller player in forcing jobs overseas. How much do you think hospital stays cost in relation to drugs?