On the cost of pills...

[The Cleric]

The trick is knowing when the R&D is paid for, and when they've made money to compensate for the next round. That's one reason why the US has such high health care costs as opposed to the rest of the world; US pharmacutical companies perform most of the new drug research and development.

[SirNitram]

The R&D excuse is really just an excuse. Crack open the public records of openly traded Pharmacuticals and you quickly realize the 'R&D costs sooooo much, let us gouge you!' is a load of crap. The money hole is advertising, and it's a recent event. Why is it recent?

Until the GOP took control, IIRC, in 1994, it was illegal to advertise your drug if you either 1) Said the name of your drug(So you could say 'If you experience Blah, talk to your doctor' and hope he prescribed your stuff), or 2) Didn't list every single potential side effect.

That rule is gone. Now you cannot throw a stick but hit a Cialis commercial.

[The Cleric]

The US spends more money per year on R&D than Canada does on health care. I looked it up a while ago, it's like 10-15% more. Add to that the fact that the US is a nation of fatasses who need to lay off the McDonalds and take a walk, and yeah, I can see why the gov. doesn't want to spring for health care.

[The Cleric]

But sure, whine all you want about how the GOP has/is/will destroy America and all it's ever stood for and how the Democratic Party will win the next election and return it to a Clinton-esque utopia paradise.

[Cynical Cat]

The US has nearly ten times Canada's population and the most expensive health care system per capita in the western world by a longshot. Spending 10-15% more than Canada does total on research is just a very small percentage of what the US spends on medical care. Do you have a real rebuttal?

[SirNitram]

But sure, whine all you want about how the GOP has/is/will destroy America and all it's ever stood for and how the Democratic Party will win the next election and return it to a Clinton-esque utopia paradise.

Come back when you can rebutt the fact that more money goes to profits and advertising for Pharma's than R&D, please. This is not a Dem/Rep thread.

[frigidmagi]

Split from this topic with the blessing of admins. That is all.

[Comrade Tortoise]

The US spends more money per year on R&D than Canada does on health care. I looked it up a while ago, it's like 10-15% more. Add to that the fact that the US is a nation of fatasses who need to lay off the McDonalds and take a walk, and yeah, I can see why the gov. doesn't want to spring for health care.

Per capita, we are already paying for a socialized healthcare system, we just arent getting a socialized healthcare system. I honestly dont see why we pay for something we dont receive.

R&D really does not take that much, on average about 500 million USD, mostly spent on the cost of clinical trials. Considering the sheer number of pills your typical drug company sells, that does not justify the cost of the drug. To run the numbers

There are 1,622,982(ish) people in the US living with HIV/AIDS. Now, let's assume that half use this particular drug (Efavirenz), and let's assume that the Indian drug manufacturer makes $.05 on each pill, so the manufacturing cost is $.4 per pill. The cost that Merck charges is $1.59 typically. This means that over and above their actual manufacturing costs, they are making $1.14 on each pill. So, in one day, they make a profit of $925,099.74. So it takes about 540 days for them to make up their research and development costs. This drug was released in 1998. 9 years later, they are still charging that amount. That is not ethical, and it is insane.

[SirNitram]

Of course, Tortoise's post relies on the implicit assumption that the R&D must be paid for via corporate profits. I will quote from a study and quote it's references.

* The average price for prescription drugs around the world is just one-quarter of the U.S. price (76).
* Even though R&D costs of many drugs developed in the United States are funded in large part by federal tax monies through basic research by the National Institutes of Health, drug manufacturers exaggerate their own R&D expenditures, claiming that about $800 million are expended to bring a new drug to market (77). Studies by Public Citizen s Health Research Group put that figure closer to $110 million (78).
* Most new drugs are not innovative and are merely me-too drugs with minimal structural change but maximal marketing hype as breakthroughs, launching another 17-year period of patent protection (79). The nonprofit National Institute of Health Care Management estimates that 85 percent of drugs approved by the FDA between 1989 and 2000 were modifications of existing drugs (80).
* Fifty-seven percent of the more important new drugs are discovered by R&D in other countries and later marketed in the United States (81). The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries, despite the presence of price controls in their countries, spent $47 billion on R&D in 2002, about 50 percent more than R&D spending by U.S. drug manufacturers (82, 83).
* The price of Lanoxin (digoxin), the most common drug used by the elderly, rose seven times the inflation rate in 1998 (84). Tamoxifen (Nolvadex), a long-term drug used by patients with breast cancer, costs $360 in the United States for a 30-day supply, compared with $60 at the pharmacy at the Munich International Airport in Germany (85).

76. Baker, D. Patent medicine. American Prospect, January 29, 2001, p. 34 35.
77. Goozner, M. The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2004.
78. Lueck, S. Drug industry exaggerates R&D costs to justify pricing, consumer group says. Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2001.
79. Angell, M., and Relman, A. S. Prescription for profit. June 21, 2001. www.washingtonpost.com.
80. Pricey copycat drugs bring big profits, not new cures. USA Today. www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020531/4156072s.htm.
81. Light, D. W., et al. Will lower drug prices jeopardize drug research? A policy fact sheet. Am. J. Bioethics 4(1), 2004.
82. Cockburn, I. M. The changing structure of the pharmaceutical industry. Health Aff. (Millwood) 23(1): 10 22, 2004.
83. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures, 2003 Update. Brussels, 2003.
84. Publications and Reports. Prescription drugs: Hard to swallow rising prices for America s seniors. Health Aff. (Millwood) 19(1): 254, 2000.
85. Bates, B. Free market or patent protection? Research costs role of FDA cited in drug debate. Fam. Pract. News 34(4): 1, 2004.

Sadly, Tortoise assumes the best of pharmacutical companies. Reality retains it's well-known liberal bias, to quote Stephen Colbert.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Even though R&D costs of many drugs developed in the United States are funded in large part by federal tax monies through basic research by the National Institutes of Health, drug manufacturers exaggerate their own R&D expenditures, claiming that about $800 million are expended to bring a new drug to market (77). Studies by Public Citizen s Health Research Group put that figure closer to $110 million (78).

In my original draft of the post, I actually mention that much of the research is done on federal grants and by research universities, but I didnt know the details and didnt want to post something I couldn't quantify.

Most new drugs are not innovative and are merely me-too drugs with minimal structural change but maximal marketing hype as breakthroughs, launching another 17-year period of patent protection (79). The nonprofit National Institute of Health Care Management estimates that 85 percent of drugs approved by the FDA between 1989 and 2000 were modifications of existing drugs (80).

mentioned this in the original draft as well, took it out for the same reasons

"Hey lets slap an inert carbon chain on a successful drug, renew the patent, market the hell out of it, and scream about R&D costs when people bitch about the cost!"

Sadly, Tortoise assumes the best of pharmacutical companies. Reality retains it's well-known liberal bias, to quote Stephen Colbert

Heartily agreed, I assumed the best to illustrate the utter insanity of their pricing. Even if everything the drug companies says to pacify and angry public is true, they are STILL unethical swine.