“We’re going to stop making new products. We’ve decided that we don’t need more money.”
Does that sound like a pharma company to you?
“We are going to continue to sell existing products off label for exorbitant prices. We will also use public research and spend all our money on marketing.”
FTFY
In the last decade every major drug that has been developed has come from public research. Don’t believe these pharmaceutical companies for a second. They have been lying through their teeth for decades now.
Ignore anything any company says. They lie.
Its like Ruzzia. Just reverse to the polar opposite of whatever they say and you’ll have a decent understanding of whatever’s at issue
Did you take the shots of recent noteworthiness?
Big Pharma doesn’t really do as much basic research as they claim. They do a fair bit but I’d guess it’s mostly universities funded by NIH (and other governments’) grants making the most important discoveries. Then philanthropists, investors, more government grants, etc. often fund the early stage clinical trials and the creation of the small company. Big Pharma does obviously invent a lot of medications in house but it seems like the more typical path is that they buy a small company in later stage trials and provide the marketing and manufacturing/distribution at scale.
Which is fine. They aren’t pure evil or good. The discoverer, university, people who took financial risk get paid. But there’s other ways for scientists, universities, and early investors to get their return (which usually funds the next round of research). Government “bounties” is one idea. Like, if you create a miracle cure, rich governments buy the IP rights for x amount and release all claims on the patents so it’s generic from the start. If done correctly, the savings to national healthcare systems (and the 17 systems the U.S. has duct taped together) would cover the bounty and then some. Big Pharma’s manufacturing and distribution would still be important in that system and they could focus on things without bounties.
Honestly, I’d like to see that anyway, especially for diseases that are sort of ignored by capitalism. It’s perfectly ok if the bounty system loses money curing things Big Pharma isn’t so interested in (like less famous third world diseases). It’s not like bombs and roads are profitable for governments.
Not sure that’s true. At least in my experience, a lot of our docs do research funded by pharmaceutical companies
The stats I’ve seen in the past indicate they spend more on marketing and lobbying than they do on R&D.
Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
I think you’re both right. Companies do spend a lot of money on R&D, that’s true. But it’s not really the point.
Studies show that companies spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D, a lot more. That is the issue in a nutshell. These companies rake in billions and spend a fraction of that on R&D. The vast majority of their spending is on marketing (a lot of which is in the form of direct-to-consumer advertising - something only legal in the USA and New Zealand), executive compensation, and stock buybacks.
-
Big Pharma Spent More on Stock Buybacks and Dividends than R&D: A July report from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Reform found that 14 of the largest drug makers spent $57 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than R&D, between 2016 and 2020.
-
Overhead Advertising and Corporate Overhead Outweigh R&D: A 2019 study from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing (CSRxP) found Big Pharma spends more than twice as much on corporate overhead and advertising as it does on R&D.
-
Profits Over Patients: Drug makers used a windfall from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to boost profits for shareholders instead of investing in R&D. In fact, the increase in payouts to Wall Street and board members was 17 times larger than the increased investment in R&D that year.
Additionally, the R&D that they do is of limited value in many cases.
Nearly two-thirds of the country’s top-selling prescription drugs—92 of the 135 drugs data was available for—were rated as offering patients low added benefit by health agencies in France and Canada, the researchers found, relying on the foreign agencies as no U.S. agency compares prescription drugs for effectiveness.
And those limited benefit drugs are the ones they are spending the most direct-to-consumer marketing dollars on so people will harass their doctors to prescribe the drug they just saw on TV rather than the equally effective drug the doctor was already giving them. Such advertising really needs to be illegal here as it is almost everywhere else and everyone other than the pharmaceutical companies seems to agree.
If we cut the pharmaceutical companies’ marketing budgets, eliminate direct-to-consumer advertising, regulate and rein in executive compensation and stock buybacks, they will be able to spend just as much on R&D as they do now AND sell drugs in the USA as inexpensively as they do on the rest of the planet.
-
The Sacklers need to go to prison and their stuff repossessed.
Imagine the rich ever being held accountable
Sounds like they need to nationalize drug production. NIH and universities do most of the development of new drugs anyway. Fuck the crooks in big pharma.
Removed by mod
When corporations say things like this, it should be considered a threat… Terrorism even
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368538/medicare-drug-prices-pharma-negotiations-innovation
Generic Epipens still cost $300. They can all go fuck themselves.
They can’t decide if they need the money upfront to fund the research and trials, or if they have to price gouge people for the result to get paid back for the research and trials.
