NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading this on a message board that is solely for Health related issues and was disgusted. I know we live in a capitalistic society where businesses don't have to follow any kind of social responsibilities and money is God, but I think there should be some sort of cap on markup.

I checked Snopes.com and was able to determine that the part about an Investigative Report on Channel 7 in Detroit is TRUE. I don't think any of us doubt that someone is making a heck of a lot of money off sick folks. Wonder if thats the same in Canada? Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries.

In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America. The chart below speaks for itself. This is based on 100 pills.


BRAND STRENGTH WE PAY STORE COST MARK UP
Celebrex - 100 mg - $130.27 - $0.60 - 21,712%
Claritin - 10 mg - $215.17 - $0.71 - 30,306%
Keflex - 250 mg - $157.39 - $1.88 - 8,372%
Lipitor - 20 mg - $272.37 - $5.80 - 4,696%
Norvasc - 10 mg - $188.29 - $0.14 - 134,493%
Paxil - 20 mg - $220.27 - $7.60 - 2,898%
Prevacid - 30 mg - $44.77 - $1.01 - 34,136%
Prilosec - 20 mg - $360.97 - $0.52 - 69,417%
Prozac - 20 mg - $247.47 - $0.11 - 224,973%
Tenormin - 50 mg - $104.47 - $0.13 - 80,362%
Vasotec - 10 mg - $102.37 - $0.20 - 51,185%
Xanax - 1 mg - $136.79 - $0.02 - 4569,958% (HOLY SHIT~!)
Zestril - 20 mg - $89.89 - $3.20 - 2,809%
Zithromax - 600 mg - $1,482.19 - $18.78 - 7,892%
Zocor - 40 mg - $350.27 - $8.63 - 4,059%
Zoloft - 50 mg - $206.87 - $1.75 - 11,821%

Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone I knew should know about this. Please read the Following and pass it on.

It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery As to why they can afford to put a Walgreens on every corner..................

On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price Gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo..... three thousand percent!

So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they
would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!

At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.

I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and getits online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Compazine, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients. I used the generic equivalent, which cost $5499 for 60 ills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, And I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I Paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08. I would like to mention, that although Costco is a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You justtell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.

Vasotec - 10 mg - $102.37 - $0.20 - 51,185%

WAH! This is so evil! Cheap assholes! :headbang: no wonder I need medical insurance! T H I S B L O W S!!!

FYI - this is one of the many blood pressure reducation medcines. If you do have a problem with blood pressure...ignoring the cost, this one is very good.

No sheeyat!

Well at least we know to go to Costco now

No sheeyat!

Well at least we know to go to Costco now
Lucky... I can't... :mad: it's too far from where I live and I don't have a car.

Lucky... I can't... :mad: it's too far from where I live and I don't have a car.


Well if you would save $60 on the cost I bet you could get someone to drive you for $10

It is about ridiculous. Fortunately my insurance has a $3 co-pay so my BP meds are never more than $3 no matter where I go.

Well we have the NHS in britain
but my friend had to have his kidney stones removed while on holiday in the US and paid £7000

My lifesyle and food are my medicine. After all, isn't there an old saying that goes "an once of prevention is worth a ton of cure"?

What about all the cash they had to pour into the fugging stuff to make it work in the first place?
You are forgetting the immense amount of cash required for R&D, marketting, shipping, testing, etc.
These people have to pay scientists, sales persons, lawyers, marketing, human guinea pigs (for human testing), etc.
All of this takes money, lots of it too, and doesn't even include the false starts of trying one drug and then discoverin it doesn't work as planned. They have to recoup those losses somehow, so they do it when they sell the drugs.

My lifesyle and food are my medicine. After all, isn't there an old saying that goes "an once of prevention is worth a ton of cure"?

ditto

The only medicine I take is a vicodin I get from my aunt if I get a migrane, which only happens about once or twice a year now that I eat healthy.

Does anyone think that there should be a cap of some sorts on markup?

What about all the cash they had to pour into the fugging stuff to make it work in the first place?
You are forgetting the immense amount of cash required for R&D, marketting, shipping, testing, etc.
These people have to pay scientists, sales persons, lawyers, marketing, human guinea pigs (for human testing), etc.
All of this takes money, lots of it too, and doesn't even include the false starts of trying one drug and then discoverin it doesn't work as planned. They have to recoup those losses somehow, so they do it when they sell the drugs.
Agreed THOUGH it really does seem a bit high for even that ... but not that far

What about all the cash they had to pour into the fugging stuff to make it work in the first place?
You are forgetting the immense amount of cash required for R&D, marketting, shipping, testing, etc.
These people have to pay scientists, sales persons, lawyers, marketing, human guinea pigs (for human testing), etc.
All of this takes money, lots of it too, and doesn't even include the false starts of trying one drug and then discoverin it doesn't work as planned. They have to recoup those losses somehow, so they do it when they sell the drugs.

That's a fair point, but they should be subsidised.

What about all the cash they had to pour into the fugging stuff to make it work in the first place?
You are forgetting the immense amount of cash required for R&D, marketting, shipping, testing, etc.
These people have to pay scientists, sales persons, lawyers, marketing, human guinea pigs (for human testing), etc.
All of this takes money, lots of it too, and doesn't even include the false starts of trying one drug and then discoverin it doesn't work as planned. They have to recoup those losses somehow, so they do it when they sell the drugs.

That would be a valid point if we were talking about the drug manufacturers. Here we are talking about pharmacies.

That would be a valid point if we were talking about the drug manufacturers. Here we are talking about pharmacies.

Oh, I didn't read the last part, only the chart :p

... how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? ...
Ignoring the rest of the Costco post, this is an idiotic way to look at pricing anything. "The steel and rubber and other raw materials that make up my car only cost Ford $150, yet they charge me 20 grand. This is outrageous!" "The hay they feed to cows to make a gallon of milk costs out to $.02 per gallon - yet they charge me $4.00 a gallon at the supermarket! I'm boycotting!"

It takes 15 years and about a billion dollars to bring a drug to market in this country. An enormous amount of that expense is due to safety regulations imposed by the FDA. It takes a lot of staff to test, record, prepare, and followup on all the clinical trials and testing periods required, and then it all has to go to the FDA for review, mulitple times. I know this. I'm one of those employees.

Manufacturing cost at the endgame of a drug's product cycle is almost an afterthought. That's one of the smallest divisions of the company. R&D is MUCH larger and more heavily funded. Add to that the fact that we might get 3 years to sell our product before our patents expire and somebody like CostCo can sell our product without having incurred our costs.

Sure, we could go with only generic products from now on, but let me tell you this: there would be no new drugs. EVER. If you're not willing to pay to have them developed, then they won't be developed. I don't work for free for you or anyone else. I expect to be paid for my efforts. Pharmaceutical companies are not vast, cash-stealing hogs. Look 'em up sometime. We're all publically traded, and our profits are public record.

This chart compares generic costs to prescription costs. It's apples and oranges. Ignore the legitimate cost for a branded pharmaceutical, and you can make the numbers as silly as you want.

Ignoring the rest of the Costco post, this is an idiotic way to look at pricing anything. "The steel and rubber and other raw materials that make up my car only cost Ford $150, yet they charge me 20 grand. This is outrageous!" "The hay they feed to cows to make a gallon of milk costs out to $.02 per gallon - yet they charge me $4.00 a gallon at the supermarket! I'm boycotting!"

It takes 15 years and about a billion dollars to bring a drug to market in this country. An enormous amount of that expense is due to safety regulations imposed by the FDA. It takes a lot of staff to test, record, prepare, and followup on all the clinical trials and testing periods required, and then it all has to go to the FDA for review, mulitple times. I know this. I'm one of those employees.

Manufacturing cost at the endgame of a drug's product cycle is almost an afterthought. That's one of the smallest divisions of the company. R&D is MUCH larger and more heavily funded. Add to that the fact that we might get 3 years to sell our product before our patents expire and somebody like CostCo can sell our product without having incurred our costs.

Sure, we could go with only generic products from now on, but let me tell you this: there would be no new drugs. EVER. If you're not willing to pay to have them developed, then they won't be developed. I don't work for free for you or anyone else. I expect to be paid for my efforts. Pharmaceutical companies are not vast, cash-stealing hogs. Look 'em up sometime. We're all publically traded, and our profits are public record.

This chart compares generic costs to prescription costs. It's apples and oranges. Ignore the legitimate cost for a branded pharmaceutical, and you can make the numbers as silly as you want.

okay calm down and breath deep and slow. count to ten. feel better?

We are talking about markup in the pharmacy.

If a store paid .14 cents for a gallon of milk and charged $188.29 to the customer, it would be just as outrageous no?

Norvasc - 10 mg - $188.29 - $0.14 - 134,493%

Should the store have the right to charge the customer for all of the research it took on how to milk a cow? the cost of the cows and the milking machinery? The bottling and the shipping? I think not.

okay calm down and breath deep and slow. count to ten. feel better?

We are talking about markup in the pharmacy.

If a store paid .14 cents for a gallon of milk and charged $188.29 to the customer, it would be just as outrageous no?
The chart doesn't compare 'store costs' to sale prices. It compares 'cost of active ingredient' to store prices. The assumption is that the pharmacies pay 'cost of active ingredient'. They don't.

edit- that point was already made :p

When it comes to drug prices, Americans are getting sodomized compared to other countries due to the lack of price controls.

That would be a valid point if we were talking about the drug manufacturers. Here we are talking about pharmacies.
You are comparing the amount of money to make the drug to what the pharmacutical company charges you, yes?
In which case the pharmacy gets stuck with the costs by the drug maker because the drug maker isn't a charity and then the pharmacy sticks you with the costs because the pharmacy isn''t a charity.
And if you think they should be running a charity, consider GoodWill. Their fine for buying clothes aand furniture when you''re running chep (I know), however, would you honestly want your life dependant on a charity store?

That's a fair point, but they should be subsidised.
If they are subsidised, then taxes are used to pay for them. Guess what, you're still paying for the drugs, but now you're also paying for Bill Gates' Viagra.

The chart doesn't compare 'store costs' to sale prices. It compares 'cost of active ingredient' to store prices. The assumption is that the pharmacies pay 'cost of active ingredient'. They don't.

no... read it

BRAND - STRENGTH - WE PAY - STORE COST - MARK UP

no... read it
Does this list look familiar?

Celebrex 100 mg $130.27 $0.60 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg $215.17 $0.71 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg $157.39 $1.88 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg $272.37 $5.80 4,696%
Norvasc 10 mg $188.29 $0.14 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg $220.27 $7.60 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg $44.77 $1.01 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg $360.97 $0.52 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg $247.47 $0.11 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg $104.47 $0.13 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg $102.37 $0.20 51,185%
Xanax 1mg $136.79 $0.024 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg $89.89 $3.20 2,809%
Zithromax 600mg $1,482.19 $18.78 7,892%
Zocor 40mg $350.27 $8.63 4,059%
Zoloft 50mg $206.87 $1.75 11,821%

Guess what? It came from Life Extension Magazine (http://vitacorp.icthus.net/articles/prescription_drugs.shtml) and Calvin.edu (http://www.calvin.edu/~bbaas/drugs.html)
You know what Life Extension Magazine says: "Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries." Calvin.edu lists "COST OF GENERAL ACTIVE INGREDIENTS" for their third heading.
Doesn't support your cause to well now, does it?

no... read it
No, you read it. From your OWN post:
In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America. The chart below speaks for itself. This is based on 100 pills.


BRAND STRENGTH WE PAY STORE COST MARK UP
Changing a chart header doesn't make it fact. Hajekistan has it right.

Yep it look familiar.

But they didnt say, "This is what it costs for them to make the drug", it is still showing what the pharmacy pays for the active ingredients and how much they mark it up.

So we are still talking about store cost and store markup and not the cost of manufacturing the drug.

So yes... it does help "my cause" if that is what youw ant to call it. I merely think there should be some sort of cap on markup. What is YOUR cause?

Yep it look familiar.

But they didnt say, "This is what it costs for them to make the drug", it is still showing what the pharmacy pays for the active ingredients and how much they mark it up.

So we are still talking about store cost and store markup and not the cost of manufacturing the drug.

So yes... it does help "my cause" if that is what youw ant to call it. I merely think there should be some sort of cap on markup. What is YOUR cause?
Doesn't help if we don't know R&D costs (runs into the billions), labor costs, etc.

I never changed a header on anything... I copy/pasted what I found on a message board exactly. I merely bolded what was already there.

I don't care what the drug companies charge the Pharmacies.

From the article Hajeki posted, they are also talking about pharmacies as they mention how Walgreens (a pharmacy, not a drug company) is making a killing.

So we are still talking about store cost and store markup and not the cost of manufacturing the drug.
I'm afraid I don't accept your premise that this chart is correct. The only thing you're basing your argument on is the STORE COST header on a chart from a message board. I've worked retail, I've worked management, and I've worked pharmaceuticals, and I've never seen anything resembling markups like this. If you have some proof from Walgreens or CVS or Eckerds that their cost actually bears some resemblance to the numbers quoted here, please post it. One adutlerated chart from a message board does't cut it for me.
I merely think there should be some sort of cap on markup. What is YOUR cause?
My cause is intelligent, reasoned debate. Based on facts, not shock value and adulterated truth. You have provided neither.

Doesn't help if we don't know R&D costs (runs into the billions), labor costs, etc.


look back.. we already covered that. The drug companys price is not in question... its the pharmacy we are talking about.

look back.. we already covered that. The drug companys price is not in question... its the pharmacy we are talking about.
Then what is the cost to the pharmacy. You need those numbers to determine a markup, and even then you have to factor in the cost of doing business.

I'm afraid I don't accept your premise that this chart is correct. The only thing you're basing your argument on is the STORE COST header on a chart from a message board. I've worked retail, I've worked management, and I've worked pharmaceuticals, and I've never seen anything resembling markups like this. If you have some proof from Walgreens or CVS or Eckerds that their cost actually bears some resemblance to the numbers quoted here, please post it. One adutlerated chart from a message board does't cut it for me.

My cause is intelligent, reasoned debate. Based on facts, not shock value and adulterated truth. You have provided neither.

What truth has been adulterated? General cost is the cost to the pharmacy as you can clearly see if you actually read the article from the link Hajeki posted

What truth has been adulterated? General cost is the cost to the pharmacy as you can clearly see if you actually read the article from the link Hajeki posted
Nothing of the sort, that is raw material cost.

again from the article:

On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo..... three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!

and what are you talkign about with your "shock value" and "adulterated truth" statements? Get over your attacks and try to use this "intelligent debate" you have been braggin' on. I am the only one here who has provided any evidence of anything. Show me something to the contrary and I will read it and concede if it is conclusive proof that refutes what I have posted.

again from the article:



and what are you talkign about with your "shock value" and "adulterated truth" statements? Get over your attacks and try to use this "intelligent debate" you have been braggin' on. I am the only one here who has provided any evidence of anything. Show me something to the contrary and I will read it and concede if it is conclusive proof that refutes what I have posted.
What don't you understand about "may have". Pure speculation with no facts.

I never changed a header on anything... I copy/pasted what I found on a message board exactly. I merely bolded what was already there.

From the article Hajeki posted, they are also talking about pharmacies as they mention how Walgreens (a pharmacy, not a drug company) is making a killing.
Except if you really did read my article you would note that they only checked on how much the active ingredients themselves cost nothing else.
They didn't mention anyone of the many many other costs (even without any R&D, you still have lawyers, marketing, and middlemen) involved in production.

I don't care what the drug companies charge the Pharmacies.
Yes I know this was in the middle, but I felt the need to reply to it last.
Anyways, that is part of the cost. Assuming a pharmacy makes its own drugs, that means that they had to buy the patent from the drug company. Do you have any idea how much that can cost?

Nothing of the sort, that is raw material cost.

Really? Where does it say that?

Maybe I am interpreting it wrong or maybe you are. But I am getting my interpretation from the way the article is worded, as seeen from the bolded parts of the article in my last post.


They are talkign about pharmacies and the cost of the already manufactured drug.

Of course they need charge for the cost of their pharmacists, bottling it and putting it in gel caps or whatever. And of course they need to mark it up. But I am merely stating my opinion that the markup is too high. That is all.

I never changed a header on anything... I copy/pasted what I found on a message board exactly. I merely bolded what was already there.
I don't recall claiming that YOU changed a header. I think the original poster added the entire header to Hajekistan's published chart. Given how quickly and easily he turned up the original chart, I think your 'message board' poster has to be taken with an extremely large grain of salt.

In no place in the original article does anyone claim that these prices are what are actually paid by the pharmacies. They've used a column header labelled Cost of General, and everything concerning store markup is you reading between the lines (as they intended). By making the following statement, they attempt to validate the chart as accurate without providing any basis for your claim about store costs
On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more.
Where are his figures for store cost? Are they based on the fallacious 'active ingredient costs' from the above chart? If not, where are the invoices from the manufacturers showing actual cost, and reciepts from customers showing prices charged? I'll tell you where - they don't exist. Steve Wilson and/or Jana Mitcham (author of the article) made the illogical jump from 'active ingredient cost' to 'store cost'. As I've clearly stated above, that formula doesn't work.

Your proof is based on flawed logic. Not yours, but the article you quote. They jump directly from one cost to another without any direct proof or linkage. Nowhere in the article do they mention 'the cost of the already manufactured drug.' You made that jump, just as the authors intended you to. It's bad logic, pal. That's all there is to it.

Ignoring the rest of the Costco post, this is an idiotic way to look at pricing anything. "The steel and rubber and other raw materials that make up my car only cost Ford $150, yet they charge me 20 grand. This is outrageous!" "The hay they feed to cows to make a gallon of milk costs out to $.02 per gallon - yet they charge me $4.00 a gallon at the supermarket! I'm boycotting!"

It takes 15 years and about a billion dollars to bring a drug to market in this country. An enormous amount of that expense is due to safety regulations imposed by the FDA. It takes a lot of staff to test, record, prepare, and followup on all the clinical trials and testing periods required, and then it all has to go to the FDA for review, mulitple times. I know this. I'm one of those employees.

Manufacturing cost at the endgame of a drug's product cycle is almost an afterthought. That's one of the smallest divisions of the company. R&D is MUCH larger and more heavily funded. Add to that the fact that we might get 3 years to sell our product before our patents expire and somebody like CostCo can sell our product without having incurred our costs.

Sure, we could go with only generic products from now on, but let me tell you this: there would be no new drugs. EVER. If you're not willing to pay to have them developed, then they won't be developed. I don't work for free for you or anyone else. I expect to be paid for my efforts. Pharmaceutical companies are not vast, cash-stealing hogs. Look 'em up sometime. We're all publically traded, and our profits are public record.

This chart compares generic costs to prescription costs. It's apples and oranges. Ignore the legitimate cost for a branded pharmaceutical, and you can make the numbers as silly as you want.Right, but they get R & D grants, they get unique tax breaks and buisness is pretty good.

Really? Where does it say that?

Maybe I am interpreting it wrong or maybe you are. But I am getting my interpretation from the way the article is worded, as seeen from the bolded parts of the article in my last post.


They are talkign about pharmacies and the cost of the already manufactured drug.

Of course they need charge for the cost of their pharmacists, bottling it and putting it in gel caps or whatever. And of course they need to mark it up. But I am merely stating my opinion that the markup is too high. That is all.
No, lets listen to Life Extension Magazine (I'm assuming thats the article you like so much): "Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications"
And thats not all: "In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America."

Drug markups need to be high so that people will make more drugs. Otherwise R&D would grind to a hault and we would all just have to wonder what could have been.

Right, but they get R & D grants, they get unique tax breaks and buisness is pretty good.
Business sucks. I work for the #2 international Pharma Co, and we're laying off support staff left and right. Our HQ is in a biopharmaceuticals corridor, and our competitors are in exactly the same straits. My own contract is up in December, with no immediate prospects in the industry. We're not getting rich, let me tell you.

We do get research grants and tax breaks, and that's reasonable. Not everyone can get by with just Motrin or Viagra. It costs just as much to develop a product that helps a hundred people as one that helps a million. Left to a standard business model, we'd ignore all the little diseases. There's no way to recoup the costs. Government and NGO funding helps fill in those gaps, which allows us to provide humanitarian aid and still pay staff and expenses. It's not a giveaway.

Business sucks. I work for the #2 international Pharma Co, and we're laying off support staff left and right. Our HQ is in a biopharmaceuticals corridor, and our competitors are in exactly the same straits. My own contract is up in December, with no immediate prospects in the industry. We're not getting rich, let me tell you.

We do get research grants and tax breaks, and that's reasonable. Not everyone can get by with just Motrin or Viagra. It costs just as much to develop a product that helps a hundred people as one that helps a million. Left to a standard business model, we'd ignore all the little diseases. There's no way to recoup the costs. Government and NGO funding helps fill in those gaps, which allows us to provide humanitarian aid and still pay staff and expenses. It's not a giveaway.
Over here in Britain tax breaks are given to compnies that give away medicine to poor countries. No guidelines are given for what they give away, so there are a number of poor countries sitting on stockpiles of asprin that expired 5-years ago, nitrous oxide that expired 10 years ago, and silicon breast implants. These poor countries then have to spend money to dispose of this useless stuff. Forgive me that I don't bleed for the suffering of the pharmacutical giants.

This seems a flawed argument - firstly, most points have been mentioned, yet you ignore them -
1. the drug manufactures markup their drugs before selling to pharmacies
2. the active ingredients are useless on their own - an active ingredient of a capsule or pill may be 0.01% of the pill - and the 'wadding' to size up the pill may cost nearly as much, so tijmes that by your mark-ups
3. R&D
4. Your data is of questionable integrity
5. Your arguments seem harsh, loud and worryingly full of little content.
6. That title. Come on.

Not a good thread, unless you have some decent evidence, and actually understand the statistics - instead of interpreting them as the shock story whithin which they were presented.

Okay I see I was selectively reading to see only what they were trying to get across and should read between the lines better. But why can CostCo sell the same thing for a lot cheaper?

I just read some interesting stuff here:

http://www.supplementquality.com/news/skyrocketing_drug_costs.html

Skyrocketing public health costs are bankrupting individual Americans and posing serious challenges to city, state, and federal budgets. The high cost of prescription drugs may be only the tip of the iceberg—but it's also the most visible and easiest to attack.

While Congress debates legislation, Americans are already voting with their checkbooks—going to Canada and Europe to buy prescription drugs.

Why also are they cheaper in other countries? Americans are getting pickpocketed for what reason?

The high price of drugs in America acts as a defacto subsidy of lower prices in other countries. Why should Americans carry such a disproportionate burden? Especially when that burden falls most heavily on the elderly, many of whom live on fixed incomes and are forced to choose between pharmaceutical drugs that will prolong their lives and the immediate necessities of life: rent, food, heat, electric power, telephone service.

So the FDA doesn't like this very much, although its good on them that they really dont go after the patients crossing the border for these drugs, even though it's illegal.


The FDA has turned a blind eye to busloads of Americans going north. William Hubbard, FDA associate commissioner, explains "it's so uncompassionate to go after patients." He says the FDA understands the price concerns, but says imports expose Americans to potentially counterfeit or expired drugs—and that FDA cannot guarantee the safety of drugs from foreign countries.

How dangerous are these "foreign" drugs?

According to William Faloon, director of the Life Extension Foundation, "Many of the active ingredients for drugs sold in the US are actually synthesized in the very countries the FDA says you cannot trust. Drug companies import these active ingredients into the United States where they wind up in the expensive drugs you buy at the local pharmacy."

Canada's Health Minister, Anne McLellan, says that Canada has "some of the highest drug-safety standards in the world."


This was interesting too:

How much lower are foreign drug prices?

"A bottle of tamoxifen, used to fight breast cancer, costs $360 in the United States. It costs $60 in Germany," according to Representative Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri.

The US is the only industrialized nation where prices are unaffected by government regulation. Canada sets a ceiling on the price of each drug. These caps are linked to European price controls, most of which are linked to one another. For example, Dutch prices are an average of those in four other countries, while Greece requires a drug's price to be the lowest of any other price in Europe.

However, price controls are not the only reason why prices are lower abroad. Canada and other single-health-care entities enjoy the economies of scale that result from buying in massive quantities and negotiating directly with drug companies.

I wonder why we in the US don't follow such an example to allow our senior citizens and other people in poor health get affordable drugs? I still think that making a profit is more important that helping the sick to these people.

Well there is a lot of information at that link to consider. It shows why drugs are so expensive regarding R&D and such, but the approval process doesn't seem to have helped anything:

Option 2: Reform the FDA approval process

Prior to 1962, the FDA-approval process for a new drug stopped with testing for safety (phase I clinical research). Restoring this standard would cut the cost of research roughly in half, thereby cutting the cost of drugs like tamoxifen from $360 per bottle to somewhere between $145 and $200—without any price regulation whatsoever.

Would these new drugs be effective?

Nobody wants to spend $145 or more for a substance that doesn't work better than a placebo. So how would we test the effectiveness of new drugs? One method is to open this phase of clinical research to any patients who want to try the new drug, and creating a database system to assist physicians in tracking success versus failure.

Are current drugs more effective than pre-1962?

At least two studies have concluded that drugs introduced before 1962 were, for the most part, as effective as drugs approved after 1962. In other words, the increased time and cost of research required for obtaining FDA approval has not resulted in safer or more effective drugs.

Two private market forces exert a powerful influence on companies in bringing new drugs to the marketplace: the importance of having a good reputation (which is harmed by creating either unsafe or ineffective drugs), and the potential for lawsuits, especially in these litigious times. These two factors, combined with private organizations and endeavors that review use of drugs—such as AMA Drug Evaluations, American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information, and U.S. Pharmacopoeia Drug Indications—worked to ensure that pre-1962 drugs were roughly as effective as those of today.

Hidden consequences of the current FDA approval system

Doctors Daniel Klein and Alexander Tabarrok of The Independent Institute point out that "Even after extensive testing, the safety and effectiveness of a new drug are always somewhat uncertain." They describe two kinds of errors that can occur:

FDA approves a drug that is not safe or effective.
FDA rejects or simply delays a drug that would be valuable for patients.
The FDA is strongly motivated to avoid type 1 errors—these deaths and disabilities get a lot of media attention—but has no motivation at all to avoid type 2 errors, which are almost invisible to the media.

What are the consequences of type 2 errors? People die from not having access to drugs that might save them. The most highly visible example is delays in processing drugs for treating HIV. Only the well-publicized protests of HIV patients and activists prodded the FDA into streamlining its approval process.

how about if the price is so cheap people won't think that it works.

seems stupid I know, but it is proven part of consumer psycology. If a can of beans cost $1 or $0.10 then which will be better?

So maybe we the consumer are partly to blame for thinking the higher costed, branded drugs are more trustworthy.

What about all the cash they had to pour into the fugging stuff to make it work in the first place?
You are forgetting the immense amount of cash required for R&D, marketting, shipping, testing, etc.
These people have to pay scientists, sales persons, lawyers, marketing, human guinea pigs (for human testing), etc.
All of this takes money, lots of it too, and doesn't even include the false starts of trying one drug and then discoverin it doesn't work as planned. They have to recoup those losses somehow, so they do it when they sell the drugs.
That's a fair point, but they should be subsidised.
By whom? Is it fair to ask others to subsidize it through taxation? No.

If they are subsidised, then taxes are used to pay for them.

Well, duh.

Guess what, you're still paying for the drugs, but now you're also paying for Bill Gates' Viagra.

Tax brackets, my friend. What about subsidy brackets? :p

The current US prices as they are look terrible- who can afford that? I thought they were bad enough here...

By whom? Is it fair to ask others to subsidize it through taxation? No.

Yes it is. It's our responsibility to care for the community and ensure that everyone has access to decent healthcare, not just the wealthy. With prices like those, health to most people would be a second priority...and that's wrong.

Reading these posts, and hearing stories from family and friends about costs of medication and healthcare disgusts me. For all it's faults, the NHS here in Britain is pretty good.

My asthma inhalers (2, lasts 2 months) cost to me £6.40
Contraception cost free
Antihistamine tablets Pack of 30 cost £6.40 (stronger than over the counter)
Operation for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Free
All my visits to Hospital or GP Free

Ok I may pay higher taxes on my earnings than I would if I was in the US, but...I don't mind!

Unfortunately people in this thread are arguing apples vs oranges.

The original quote in the original post is misleading. It complains about pharmacies mark up, yet includes a chart complaining about drug companies mark up.

Drug companies cant price their drugs based on price of ingredients. No one can argue that. Drug companies have to pay it's employees and fund R&D.

Pharmacies on the other hand have to mark up drugs because they have overhead to pay as well. But is 3000% mark up justified? Personally I dont believe so, but hey, that's the way the system works.

The problem is that there are people arguing that the govt should step in and set prices, or subsidise drug purchases. These people are forgetting the real power of a capitilistic society. Your wallets.

The original news report found, within the Detroit area alone, a generic drugs price varied from $92 to $9. If everyone who wanted that generic drug only bought from the pharmacy that charged $9, the other would change it's price very very fast. It doesnt matter how much you mark something up, if no one buys it, you dont make money.

It's not the govt's job to set prices, it's ours. Use your power and vote with your feet.

The problem is that there are people arguing that the govt should step in and set prices, or subsidise drug purchases. These people are forgetting the real power of a capitilistic society. Your wallets.

The original news report found, within the Detroit area alone, a generic drugs price varied from $92 to $9. If everyone who wanted that generic drug only bought from the pharmacy that charged $9, the other would change it's price very very fast. It doesnt matter how much you mark something up, if no one buys it, you dont make money.

It's not the govt's job to set prices, it's ours. Use your power and vote with your feet.


Only one problem with that logic. Certain drugs you have no choice. Life and death in many cases.

You suggesting an asmatic stop buying his drugs because the prices are too high? Somebody with AIDS? What about the elderly and severe colds?

The drug companies gouge because they have a trapped customers. It's not a simply capitolistic scenerio where you can either do without or shop around.

The goverment has to mandate prices because the pharmies price gouge.

It's against the law to price gouge in a Natural Disaster. It should be the same for certain types of drugs.

Contraception cost free
So the working shmoe down the street is paying for you and your girlfriend to play grab ass? How is that a good thing?

Ok I may pay higher taxes on my earnings than I would if I was in the US, but...I don't mind!
If you paid less taxes, you'd have more money and would be able to pay for your own "snogging", yes?

Only one problem with that logic. Certain drugs you have no choice. Life and death in many cases.
And yet humanity lasted for a long time before their creation.
Further, if you're in that bad a shape, the government is probably already paying for a part of your drugs.

You suggesting an asmatic stop buying his drugs because the prices are too high? Somebody with AIDS? What about the elderly and severe colds?

The drug companies gouge because they have a trapped customers. It's not a simply capitolistic scenerio where you can either do without or shop around.
One could say the same thing about food.
You can't go a very long time without eating or drinking, so should the government pay for my hamburgers?

The goverment has to mandate prices because the pharmies price gouge.

It's against the law to price gouge in a Natural Disaster. It should be the same for certain types of drugs.
Lets say, for a moment, that this horrible "price gouging" was allowed in a natural disaster.
I have two examples about this scenario, here they are:

Lets say a six pack of half liter bottles of water costs $5 on a regular basis. Now Hurricane Bob Evans is about to rip through, say, Florida. People go into full panic mode and started rushing out to buy bottled water, so they'll have water after the storm is over. Now, if the store isn't allowed to raise its prices their will be more hoarding and the first handful of people will keep all the water. If the store owner raised the cost to $10, however, the people will buy less water, resulting in more people getting water and less hoarding.
Now Hurricane Bob Evans has gone through and made one hell of a mess out of Florida. There are trees blocking the roads and people can't drive their SUVs through the streets. So people are going out to get chainsaws to clear the way. Hypothetically, we'll say that the Uber-Whacker Hack-n-Slash Model Chainsaw costs $100 for a retailer. The local Home Depot sells them for $110 (making a 10 dollar profit). However, not alot of people have them as, aside from Jason Vorhees, most people don't have a regular need for chainsaws. As a result, the Home Depot runs out of them and Florida needs chainsaws. If you allow "price gouging" someone will say, "Hey, people need chainsaws and no one is selling them. I could make a lot of money." and he buys as many as possible and drives all night to bring the chainsaws to the disaster, when he gets there, he sells them for $200. Another guy sees this and goes to get his own supply, and starts selling at $190. Now the first guy looks over and has to either try and wait the second guy out, or sell for $180. And so on, and so forth.

So the working shmoe down the street is paying for you and your girlfriend to play grab ass? How is that a good thing?
ok heres a question for you, would you rather be paying for them to play grab ass, or paying their kid's way through 18+ years of public school? plus anything else



If you paid less taxes, you'd have more money and would be able to pay for your own "snogging", yes?
at probably some where around a 10x higher rate because the government isnt controlling prices, this is the problem with the american capitalist thinking capitalism is great. guess what capitalism in america SUCKSSS, anything not specifically controlled by the government blows out of control, prices go through the roof for no other reason than to make profit because they dont have competition from outside the us, they can do whatever they want.


And yet humanity lasted for a long time before their creation.
Further, if you're in that bad a shape, the government is probably already paying for a part of your drugs.
yeah, and the average life expectancy was down by decades upon decades whole areas couldbe whiped out if one person was infected, wasnt 1/3rd of europe whiped out by the black plague? and yeah the government may be paying for part of your drugs, but if you have a life treatening illness chances are you are paying craploads of money still because of the medical industries price gouging

One could say the same thing about food.
You can't go a very long time without eating or drinking, so should the government pay for my hamburgers?
yeah it should, the government should control every industry to keep it in line, every person should pay a certain amount of taxes and they should be guaranteed a certain amount of government protection, just because it isnt capitalism doesnt mean its wrong or just an imaginary situation



price gouging during a national disaster is wrong, PERIOD. anyone caught price gouging during a national disaster should be put clapped in the stocks for a day

ok heres a question for you, would you rather be paying for them to play grab ass, or paying their kid's way through 18+ years of public school? plus anything else
I'd rather have school privatized.
If you can''t pay for a brat and you can't buy a condom, keep your pants on until you can do one or the other. No one ever died from underscrewing.

at probably some where around a 10x higher rate because the government isnt controlling prices, this is the problem with the american capitalist thinking capitalism is great. guess what capitalism in america SUCKSSS, anything not specifically controlled by the government blows out of control, prices go through the roof for no other reason than to make profit because they dont have competition from outside the us, they can do whatever they want.
Uh, no?
At a certain point some one else will make the goods for a lower price, people will go there, and the high priced company will either implode or lower its prices.
In a true free market, everyone gets what they need because things cost what they are worth. If everyone wants it, its worth more. If no one wants it, then it is worth nothing.
Additionally, Hong Kong did OK with minimalist government regulation.

yeah, and the average life expectancy was down by decades upon decades whole areas couldbe whiped out if one person was infected, wasnt 1/3rd of europe whiped out by the black plague? and yeah the government may be paying for part of your drugs, but if you have a life treatening illness chances are you are paying craploads of money still because of the medical industries price gouging
The Black Plague would kick major ass if it were to appear today to. No one knows anything about it, and we stil don't. It hit and went before medical science had developed.
Anyways, the main cause of the short life expectancy was the high rate of infant mortality.

yeah it should, the government should control every industry to keep it in line, every person should pay a certain amount of taxes and they should be guaranteed a certain amount of government protection, just because it isnt capitalism doesnt mean its wrong or just an imaginary situation
So that means that your tax dollars should go out so I can get two big macs instead of one?
What if I don't want to pay for your corpulence?

price gouging during a national disaster is wrong, PERIOD. anyone caught price gouging during a national disaster should be put clapped in the stocks for a day
I note you don't have a reply for the examples of it working, just a general moral argument.
Price gouging works and makes all involved better. Or would you rather the Floridians take electric razors to the trees that Hurricane Bob Evans knocked down. Perhaps a few people dying of dehydration is worth allowing people to stock pile cheap water. Perhaps your complaint is non-sensical.

I'd rather have school privatized.
If you can''t pay for a brat and you can't buy a condom, keep your pants on until you can do one or the other. No one ever died from underscrewing.
privatising everything doesnt fix shit, it just keeps the government from having to do its job

Uh, no?
At a certain point some one else will make the goods for a lower price, people will go there, and the high priced company will either implode or lower its prices.
In a true free market, everyone gets what they need because things cost what they are worth. If everyone wants it, its worth more. If no one wants it, then it is worth nothing.
Additionally, Hong Kong did OK with minimalist government regulation.
cept in america the medical industry can literally charge you an arm and a leg because you cant get medicine anywhere else because we have to follow the FDA crap, so the medical industry has ZERO competition


The Black Plague would kick major ass if it were to appear today to. No one knows anything about it, and we stil don't. It hit and went before medical science had developed.
Anyways, the main cause of the short life expectancy was the high rate of infant mortality.
that is the most inane thing i have ever heard, the main cause of short life expectancy is high rate of infant mortality, i see ZERO, count it, ZERO, connection between the life expectancy of adults and infant mortality
and we do know stuff about the plague, we know what it is, what carries it, and how it is transmitted, that is why there arnt any major breakouts in developed nations. and are you pretending there are no cases of plague still roaming the world? go check the CDC site and quit pretending


So that means that your tax dollars should go out so I can get two big macs instead of one?
What if I don't want to pay for your corpulence?
why is it the idiot capitalist who believe communism and socialism to be evil know jack shit about it. guess what you dont pay, you dont get your shit either, ill still get mine because im paying the government for it, your ass stops paying, you stop getting supported by the government, we call this SIMPLE


I note you don't have a reply for the examples of it working, just a general moral argument.
Price gouging works and makes all involved better. Or would you rather the Floridians take electric razors to the trees that Hurricane Bob Evans knocked down. Perhaps a few people dying of dehydration is worth allowing people to stock pile cheap water. Perhaps your complaint is non-sensical.
HOW DOES IT WORK? wow, looks like a natural disaster, better increase how much stuff will cost so we can make more money, i know its bullshit, and corporations know its bullshit that increasing the price of a needed object will stop mass buying of that object especially in a crisis situation, you can make bread 30 bucks during a winter storm warning, people will still buy enough to get them through it, APPARENTLY you dont understand how capitalism works, even if i do present a moral argument, you present a completely illogical one.

Only one problem with that logic. Certain drugs you have no choice. Life and death in many cases.

You suggesting an asmatic stop buying his drugs because the prices are too high? Somebody with AIDS? What about the elderly and severe colds?

The drug companies gouge because they have a trapped customers. It's not a simply capitolistic scenerio where you can either do without or shop around.

The goverment has to mandate prices because the pharmies price gouge.

It's against the law to price gouge in a Natural Disaster. It should be the same for certain types of drugs.

Again, you are confusing the 2 matters. The original post was about pharmacies marking up drugs. You are talking about drug companies.

Drug companies have to charge extra because of R&D. I doubt there are many on this board that has any real idea just what goes into R&D for some of these drugs... I dont, so I cant say if their prices are good or bad.

Pharmacies on the other hand, (what this thread is supposed to be about) do mark up on their own. Im not advocating that someone not buy drugs they need (that's a stupid idea.. why did you think of it?) Im suggesting that they go to the pharmacies that mark up their drugs more reasonably. If no one bought anything from a pharmacy that marked up drugs 3000% or more then that pharmacy would go out of business, or change it's business plan.

guess what capitalism in america SUCKSSS, anything not specifically controlled by the government blows out of control, prices go through the roof for no other reason than to make profit because they dont have competition from outside the us, they can do whatever they want.



Like the way the government keeps food prices artificially high? You ever had so much as a class on economics?

Just because the government regulates prices, does not mean that the cost of business goes down. Someone has to make up the difference.

Again, you are confusing the 2 matters. The original post was about pharmacies marking up drugs. You are talking about drug companies.

Pharmacies on the other hand, (what this thread is supposed to be about) do mark up on their own. Im not advocating that someone not buy drugs they need (that's a stupid idea.. why did you think of it?) Im suggesting that they go to the pharmacies that mark up their drugs more reasonably. If no one bought anything from a pharmacy that marked up drugs 3000% or more then that pharmacy would go out of business, or change it's business plan.

Pharmacies? Are you talking about CVS and riteaid? Pharmeceutical companies (such as Eli Lilly) make drugs, pharmacies distribute them. Pharmeceutical companies have the large mark up. Furthermore, all one has to do is look at their overall profit margin to see how much they are actually making. For example, Eli Lilly had a great year, with 20% profit....far from 3000%

For example, Eli Lilly had a great year, with 20% profit....far from 3000%

Most of which will be put right back into R&D

Like the way the government keeps food prices artificially high? You ever had so much as a class on economics?

Just because the government regulates prices, does not mean that the cost of business goes down. Someone has to make up the difference.
people will still be making a profit if you try and bring stuff down to a realistic level, a single pill of anything shouldnt cost more than the meal you are taking it with

people will still be making a profit if you try and bring stuff down to a realistic level, a single pill of anything shouldnt cost more than the meal you are taking it with

See my previous post - it IS at a realistic level

Point Number 1: Pharmaceutical companies are the most profitable entities on Earth http://www.citizen.org/documents/fortune500_2002erport.PDF and pretty much enjoy massive profits regardless of how the rest of the economy does.

Point Number 2: The development of pharmaceuticals is subsidized, through the many government-funded research clinics which donate their work to the pharm. companies, who take those ideas, maybe develop them a bit further, and then go on the charge the public for a drug developed at least in part by public money! Ralph Nader has made this a particular bugbear of his.

Point Number 3: The vast majority of American pharmaceuticals are manufactured in Ireland, so the insanely rich, insanely profitable companies can save labor and assorted costs.

I agree that if pharmaceutical companies are penalized too hard, new drug development will be harmed. However, modern pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than R&D, steal publicly-funded information and then sell it back to them, do whatever they can to maximize profits, and drug development overall has been stalling for the past decade.

Something needs to be done.

Point Number 1: Pharmaceutical companies are the most profitable entities on Earth http://www.citizen.org/documents/fortune500_2002erport.PDF and pretty much enjoy massive profits regardless of how the rest of the economy does.


They have to, because they spend so much on R&D. Would you rather they cut prices by 18.5% and then stop making any new drugs?

Point Number 2: The development of pharmaceuticals is subsidized, through the many government-funded research clinics which donate their work to the pharm. companies, who take those ideas, maybe develop them a bit further, and then go on the charge the public for a drug developed at least in part by public money! Ralph Nader has made this a particular bugbear of his.


Sources and examples please


Point Number 3: The vast majority of American pharmaceuticals are manufactured in Ireland, so the insanely rich, insanely profitable companies can save labor and assorted costs.

We ought to have them manufactured in Angola

people will still be making a profit if you try and bring stuff down to a realistic level, a single pill of anything shouldnt cost more than the meal you are taking it with
Were on earth did you get that arbitrary idea for the cost of a dose? The meal you take it with? C'mon.

I'm currently taking weekly medication that is extracted from in-vitro-grown recombinant mouse DNA. I can't begin to imagine what it takes to keep the strains pure in laboratory conditions, but I work with enough geneticists and microbiologists on a daily basis to know just how difficult it is to extract in meaningful doses. My weekly dose is 125 mg, and the cost per dose is over $250. Is it a bargain? No. Am I getting $1100 / month worth of benefit from it? Absolutely.

There is no doubt in my mind that US prices would be as much as 70-80% lower if drug companies didn't have to wade through FDA approval and procedure. That's not what the public asked for, though. They wanted 100% safe drugs, for all Americans, all the time. Not every nation has a regulatory body that's that strict. That's a big part of why you pay higher drug prices. Blame the Pharmas, blame the pharmacies, but blame yourself and your government too. You did it to yourselves.

It sounds like less regulation is in order. I'm not saying we should get rid of the FDA, as they're there for our own safety. However, the government needs to end subsidies to drug companies, and its restrictions on generic drugs. If prices for brand name drugs are too high, generics, or perhaps new brands, will flourish. Will this mean less research? Doubt it. After all, as competition rises, the pharmaceutical industry will be able to sell more drugs to more people. And it may force pharmaceuticals to diversify in things like biotech. It'll even out, and research shouldn't be hurt. It may even thrive. The government, however, just needs to stop rewarding businesses for inefficiencies.
Sadly, it'll never happen, at least not with the lobbyists around.

Will this mean less research? Doubt it. After all, as competition rises, the pharmaceutical industry will be able to sell more drugs to more people.
OK. My company has spend one billion dollars making anti-cancer drug Sav-em-all. We have patent protection for 17 years, 15 of which were spent in development and testing. We market the drug for two years at $100/dose. Then the generic companies come in and start selling the generic version for $2/dose. All they had to do was look at our patents and set up a clean-line. If we sell at $2, we're making a 10% profit on manufacturing cost, but not recouping dime one on R&D. It's a lose/marginal win for us.

The customer gets a better deal, because their drug prices have dropped by a factor of 50. The generics get a better deal, because they can make the same 10% profit on a line they didn't develop. The 'pharmaceutical industry' is collecting all the money, but the people who actually did the work and came up with the idea are barely getting any of it. What's our incentive to keep doing work for other people?

The pharmaceutical industry isn't a giant behemoth under one roof. It's a bunch of big, medium, and small companies trying to do well, and competing with each other for a share of the pie. Your assumption of more money for all just doesn't pan out.

OK. My company has spend one billion dollars making anti-cancer drug Sav-em-all. We have patent protection for 17 years, 15 of which were spent in development and testing. We market the drug for two years at $100/dose. Then the generic companies come in and start selling the generic version for $2/dose. All they had to do was look at our patents and set up a clean-line. If we sell at $2, we're making a 10% profit on manufacturing cost, but not recouping dime one on R&D. It's a lose/marginal win for us.

The customer gets a better deal, because their drug prices have dropped by a factor of 50. The generics get a better deal, because they can make the same 10% profit on a line they didn't develop. The 'pharmaceutical industry' is collecting all the money, but the people who actually did the work and came up with the idea are barely getting any of it. What's our incentive to keep doing work for other people?
The pharmaceutical industry isn't a giant behemoth under one roof. It's a bunch of big, medium, and small companies trying to do well, and competing with each other for a share of the pie. Your assumption of more money for all just doesn't pan out.
That's because pharmaceutical companies fail to diversify. I fail to see why more pharmaceutical companies haven't gone into biotech, as their employees do have the expertise. But anyhow, pharmaceutical companies need to find other sources to fund their projects, not just government handouts. At the very least, consumers will always buy medication, and thus, drug companies can always rely on a study flow of profits from these sales, even if they are smaller.
BTW, I do realize that drug companies are not exactly a few big companies, as they are all sizes. But it's the issue of price that I'm worried about. If pharmaceutical companies wish to survive without subsidies, they need to expand into healthcare in general. That's the future of medicine, anyhow.
Also, price controls exist in every other developed country, but their research is fine. It is carried out in universities and private labs overseas. Besides, if most of the world's drugs are made in Ireland, than we must assume that there's money there for drugs. We can do the same here, but using the more American principle of competition. We need to move out of the protectionist mindset bolstering prices.
Of course, I haven't directly answered your question: what incentive is there? Easy. If phamaceutical companies diversify a bit, and perhaps work closer with universities, they will be able to pay for the research. For one, having a few grad students getting some research out of the way for you is half the battle. For another, if drugs are cheaper, more people will take them. Doctors will perscribe them as they wouldn't before. They'll most likely be brands, should these companies manage to build brand loyalty. It may actually be likely that these drugs can pay for themselves, but I will admit that they need to diversify to increase profits.
Still, the pharmaceutical industry has some of the largest profit margins of any sector. At the very least, if we don't increase generic rights, then we can at least end subsidies to end these gross inadequecies. It will force their corporate boards to find more compotent execs, and focus less on these excess profit margins they don't even need.

Well we have the NHS in britain
but my friend had to have his kidney stones removed while on holiday in the US and paid £7000
That's relatively cheap. Even when converted to dollars, it's still relatively cheap, and most insurance companies pay it in full, providing that there isn't a long medical history. For example, I needed to have brain surgery that was worth $40,000. My copay was only $20.

Were on earth did you get that arbitrary idea for the cost of a dose? The meal you take it with? C'mon.

I'm currently taking weekly medication that is extracted from in-vitro-grown recombinant mouse DNA. I can't begin to imagine what it takes to keep the strains pure in laboratory conditions, but I work with enough geneticists and microbiologists on a daily basis to know just how difficult it is to extract in meaningful doses. My weekly dose is 125 mg, and the cost per dose is over $250. Is it a bargain? No. Am I getting $1100 / month worth of benefit from it? Absolutely.

There is no doubt in my mind that US prices would be as much as 70-80% lower if drug companies didn't have to wade through FDA approval and procedure. That's not what the public asked for, though. They wanted 100% safe drugs, for all Americans, all the time. Not every nation has a regulatory body that's that strict. That's a big part of why you pay higher drug prices. Blame the Pharmas, blame the pharmacies, but blame yourself and your government too. You did it to yourselves.
bull, it doesnt have to cost that much. it only costs that much because its name brand, generic brand would probably costs hundred dollars or more cheaper, and to boot, drugs in canada probably cost a crapload less, and the FDA's own research proves canadian drugs have the same damned active ingredient. you know why it costs that much? because it can. they have ZERO competition, the generics are no competition because they send a fraction of their profits to doctors to reccomend the uber expensive name brands, get a clue

That's relatively cheap. Even when converted to dollars, it's still relatively cheap, and most insurance companies pay it in full, providing that there isn't a long medical history. For example, I needed to have brain surgery that was worth $40,000. My copay was only $20.
thats because you have a GOOD medical insurance. alot of people dont. hell, alot of people dont have insurance period. my dad's work place, the ONLY utility company in the area, is swithcing to a system where the employees pay a crapload higher percent of the cost of stuff, and most medical plans only cover a certain percent of the procedure, or only so many hundred dollars.

bull, it doesnt have to cost that much. it only costs that much because its name brand, generic brand would probably costs hundred dollars or more cheaper, and to boot, drugs in canada probably cost a crapload less, and the FDA's own research proves canadian drugs have the same damned active ingredient. you know why it costs that much? because it can. they have ZERO competition, the generics are no competition because they send a fraction of their profits to doctors to reccomend the uber expensive name brands, get a clue
The FDA's job is to make sure of the purity of every peice of medication Americans consume. If they don't do that with generics, they aren't doing their job.
And BTW, Canada's drugs have the same active ingredients because most are imported from the US anyhow.

thats because you have a GOOD medical insurance. alot of people dont. hell, alot of people dont have insurance period. my dad's work place, the ONLY utility company in the area, is swithcing to a system where the employees pay a crapload higher percent of the cost of stuff, and most medical plans only cover a certain percent of the procedure, or only so many hundred dollars.
Yeah, health costs are high. That's why I'm convinced we need tort reform. Did you know that some doctors pay up to $250,000 annually just for malpractice insurance? Even in states with tort reform, like Colorado, malpractice premiums are still at least $20,000 for some doctors. Imagine how much cheaper healthcare would be for us all if we had such reform.

bull, it doesnt have to cost that much. it only costs that much because its name brand, generic brand would probably costs hundred dollars or more cheaper, and to boot, drugs in canada probably cost a crapload less, and the FDA's own research proves canadian drugs have the same damned active ingredient.

get a clue
My example wasn't hypothetical. The active ingredient is extracted recombinant DNA, and I know EXACTLY what's involved in making it, as I make my living providing support at a major pharmaceutical company that does this type of work.

I HAVE a clue. Where does your vastly superior information come from?

The FDA's job is to make sure of the purity of every peice of medication Americans consume. If they don't do that with generics, they aren't doing their job.
And BTW, Canada's drugs have the same active ingredients because most are imported from the US anyhow.
which is exactly why generics are the exact same as main brand.

which is exactly why generics are the exact same as main brand.
Right. But, oh wait a minute. I forgot your original point, and mine. If I remember, though, it'll be pointless to argue this line of thought. My bad.

My example wasn't hypothetical. The active ingredient is extracted recombinant DNA, and I know EXACTLY what's involved in making it, as I make my living providing support at a major pharmaceutical company that does this type of work.

I HAVE a clue. Where does your vastly superior information come from?
how much does it take to produce it, distribute it, and research it. then how many people must buy it and how much is it being dsitributed for

I have an idea, now. The National Institute of Health is, of course, the single largest institution in the Dept. of Health and Human Services. How about we end subsidies to pharmaceutical R&D, and allow for a free market in pharmaceuticals, where generics have equal oppritunity to compete with brand names? In the meantime, the government can invest billions more in the NIH, and at the same time, hire a management company to supervise it. The management company should be there because I believe it's cheaper than government bureaocrats doing the paperwork. Anyhow, the NIH can even float bonds. It may end up being semi-private.
Anyhow, we make them responsible for R&D in this country. We pay scientists based on discoveries, to keep competition alive in there. Once we discover a drug that's safe and effective, then we open the research to the public, and let private firms do the manufacturing. If private firms wish to develope their own drugs, they may, but they shouldn't expect any subsidies.
We are spending billions upon billions on useless programs of all sorts. If we did a little cutting here and there, we can afford such a new program at the NIH. I doubt it'd cost more than $50 billion a year. If we cut our massive education budget, end subsidies to industries, and get rid of some of the many, many social welfare programs, then we'll have plenty of money to fund this.

how much does it take to produce it, distribute it, and research it. then how many people must buy it and how much is it being dsitributed for
I see you are unable to answer a question with anything other than another ridiculously complex Straw Man question. Do I really need to dig out stuff from Finance and Manufacturing to make you a happy camper? My company (GlaxoSmithKline) has 95,000 employees, and oddly enough as part of the network support team I don't have access to the financial files.

My claim is that I know exactly how much effort is involved to derive suitable doses of modern drugs to make this stuff. I can tell you that it takes weeks of work by the scientists I support to get so much as a gram of material to work with. It's a biological. They don't just mine it and refine it. 'Active ingredient' comments may be accurate when you're dealing with ibuprofen or Viagra, but the new biologicals are a hell of a lot more complcated to produce.

Now, instead of trying to push this conversation into irrelevant details, why don't you answer my prior question about what makes Chess Squares the predominant expert in pharmaceutical prices? Internet searches? Chat rooms? I thought as much.

Anyhow, we make them responsible for R&D in this country. We pay scientists based on discoveries, to keep competition alive in there. Once we discover a drug that's safe and effective, then we open the research to the public, and let private firms do the manufacturing.
Nationalising the pharmaceutical R&D biz may not sit well with the multinationals. If the NIH acts unilaterally, all the big 10 have to do is move the staff they want to keep to one of their international HQs. GSK has major operations in 55 countries, last time I looked. Moving staff happens every week. Don't you think they're going to want to keep the best brains for themselves?

It's not a bad idea, just impractical. Nations need to learn how to work with multinational corporations first, and that's just not happening.

Nationalising the pharmaceutical R&D biz may not sit well with the multinationals. If the NIH acts unilaterally, all the big 10 have to do is move the staff they want to keep to one of their international HQs. GSK has major operations in 55 countries, last time I looked. Moving staff happens every week. Don't you think they're going to want to keep the best brains for themselves?

It's not a bad idea, just impractical. Nations need to learn how to work with multinational corporations first, and that's just not happening.
But where can they go? Most every market for drugs has price controls. The US market is the only thing that's keeping pharma companies afloat.
And for clarification, I don't want to nationalize the production of drugs. I don't want to nationalize anything. Private research can be done by anyone, but just don't except government subsidies. Should this plan be enacted (plus loosening controls on generic makers), all pharma companies will learn the meaning of free trade.

Drugs should cost what the market can afford to bare. That's why people getting drugs from Canada and other foreign countries is dangerous. Sure, you get the drugs cheaper, but what it means is you force drug companies to keep the price of drugs higher in other markets where they can not afford to pay what an average American can afford to pay, for fear that they will undermine markets such as the US that pay the bulk of the R&D costs.

Drugs should cost what the market can afford to bare. That's why people getting drugs from Canada and other foreign countries is dangerous. Sure, you get the drugs cheaper, but what it means is you force drug companies to keep the price of drugs higher in other markets where they can not afford to pay what an average American can afford to pay, for fear that they will undermine markets such as the US that pay the bulk of the R&D costs.
that is the most INANE reasoning i have EVER heard

1) no one is paying more for drugs than the americans, except for the people in america's "help drug companies get money" i mean "help the world aids problem" plan

2)if we import drugs, and they will probably only be from canada, that will force them to fix their damend prices because they will have competition, with something gettign this big they wont be able to buy out doctors making them proscribe the expensive name brand medication

it needs to happen to fix the market

I hate those companies that have AIDS drugs and are making huge profits. They could easily afford to give them to Africans for free. But they refuse to. I think they should be charged with genocide.

I hate those companies that have AIDS drugs and are making huge profits. They could easily afford to give them to Africans for free. But they refuse to. I think they should be charged with genocide.Originally Posted by Paraphrase
I hate those families that have lots more money than the poor African AIDS patients. They could easily afford to donate most of their incomes to Africans for free. But they refuse to. I think those families should be charged with genocide.Still stand by your statement, Siljhouettes? Would you accept the paraphrased version yourself? Give up your computer and your (presumably) cushy lifestyle? There are dying children in Africa hanging on your response ...

But where can they go? Most every market for drugs has price controls. The US market is the only thing that's keeping pharma companies afloat.


And yet pharmaceuticals companies make bigger profits than the oil industry, and when you talk about the risks they take with research funding, the oil indutry faces a huge risk whenever they try to tap foreign oil fields. I suppose my view is slightly tainted, being from Australia where we have the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme to protect us. The government subsidises our medicines, and our prices are cheaper than Canada's, since the amount of subsidy depends on the importance of the drug, and the cost effectiveness compared to other drugs that fulfil the same role. Unfortunately our Free Trade Agreement is set to make it easier for drug companies to have their drugs subsidised.

This story was very good, on our government owned TV station, whose main concern is telling the real story, not out rating other channels. Doesn't work so well on paper, but here it is.http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1167518.htm

Edit: I found the link for the story i saw.

I hate those companies that have AIDS drugs and are making huge profits. They could easily afford to give them to Africans for free. But they refuse to. I think they should be charged with genocide.

Here we go....

AIDS is 100% PREVENTABLE. Every attempt to help Africa has brought MORE harm than good.

Food shortages? Send in food....but no way to sustain the food supply in a desert so that just prolongs the agony.

AIDS? The UN has already written Africa off. They have publicly stated that the infection rate is beyond control there. A 100% preventable disease is going to destroy Africa and the people there do nothing to stop it. Throwing money and drugs at it is not going to help.

Africa needs to help itself and the first thing it can do is adjust the behavior that leads to AIDS and develop a sustainable food supply.