Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The FDA has also reissues patents for some drugs which keeps extending the date when generic versions can be introduced. Pfizer's Lipitor has patents dating back to the 80's and early 90's.
A patent is ONLY good for 17 years. The ancillary patents are around other molecules, which can be the metabolic product of the original molecule that also have activity, or a parent molecule of the main drug, which has some, but not all the activity of the marketed drug.
I think that pharmaceutical companies also amortize the R&D cost of orphan drugs as a "layer of allocation" to their big brands. However, only through these orphan drugs can some of the rarest diseases be treated. For example, consider the cost of the blood clotting Factor VIII drug for hemophiliacs. One infusion is prohibitive enough, and the rarity of the disease exacerbates the expense. I believe the drug would be completely out of reach for the patients if the full cost of the production (R&D and distribution) was borne by only the users of the drug.
However, I think that pharmas should stop investing funds in lifestyle drugs (e.g. ED, toe fungus meds...) and using the same "allocation" method, possibly in advertising, to launch these products. It makes mainstream drugs like Lipitor more expensive if part of the revenues from it would fund Viagra advertising.
I take several drugs for a heart condition and hypertension....They are about 25 % cheaper here in Canada than the are in the US, but are still costly. I agree that the R&D costs are high for drug companies, but I also think their profit margins are higher than they should be...The R&D costs in no way excuse pharmacies for over charging.
Having worked in a pharmacy for over 20 some years I can tell you that it is not the pharmacy doing the overcharging but it goes back to the manufacturer. Pharmacies do not have anything near that kind of markups. Insurance companies and federally funded programs would not and do not allow that.
With drug stores coming up on every corner, it don't take a very smart person to realize that drugs are a booming business! It is BIG Business, lots of money to be made in drugs. Hasn't anyone noticed the sudden boom in drug stores on every corner?
To piggyback on this: my co-pay for 3 months worth of Boniva (which is 3 tablets) was $80.00!! I personally think it's outrageous that companies get away w/charging such amounts. (I'm writing Sally Field and asking her to subsidize me :P)
To piggyback on this: my co-pay for 3 months worth of Boniva (which is 3 tablets) was $80.00!! I personally think it's outrageous that companies get away w/charging such amounts. (I'm writing Sally Field and asking her to subsidize me :P)
I understand this is a lot of money! Three tablets is still a three months supply. I mean would you feel better if you 90 tablets of Boniva and had to endure the side effects on a daily basis
Another problem a few years back was big pharma claiming they have to shell out so much money for research and developement, when in fact most of the money is spent on advertising.
It's easy to fix though, 5 or 6 scientists making $100,000 a year leave big pharma company A, go set up research company B and the next thing you know they're millionaires flying helicopters to work.
I didn't know it would be so easy.lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viralmd
The cost of the active ingredients is irrelevant, to some degree.
The real cost is discovery of the drug, testing the drug (which can take many, many years), manufacturing to specs, FDA user fees, etc. There are many costs which are not apparent to the consumer in the development of a drug, which can take a decade from the time of discover to first availability. And hundreds of millions of dollars.
I wonder if cited R&D costs include the thousands of molecules, and all the testing done on these molecules, that are chucked every year at a given location.
I wonder if cited R&D costs include the thousands of molecules, and all the testing done on these molecules, that are chucked every year at a given location.
Those costs are eaten by the Discovery budget. How that's accounted for depends on the company. Once a molecule is identified, a budget is established for further development. And remember, during the ten years it takes, on average, to go from molecule to marketed drug, this stuff is burning up money and making NONE.
I understand this is a lot of money! Three tablets is still a three months supply. I mean would you feel better if you 90 tablets of Boniva and had to endure the side effects on a daily basis
Nope: husband had a transplant and his immunosuppressants supposedly cost a bunch of $$$ but it's still $50 (each) for a 3 month supply, which is what I assumed Boniva would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
