Guest guest Posted December 25, 2009 Report Share Posted December 25, 2009 Remember only 2 of the top 8 drug companies are American and there are huge governmental and charity funded programmes throughout the EU and elsewhere in the developed world. and 2)you don't have universal healthcare (yet) so the drug companies have huge programmes to provide free or subsidised drugs to those who can't afford them - If you factor in this last issue the average price in the US is quite a bit lower than the published price - and a lot closer to the prices in other developed countries where the company never has to provide assistance programs because the state ensures everyone gets the drugs they need. > > Best Regards > > Phil ____________________________ Hi Phil, Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the information that you have. I am always open to learning from others and shifting my stances. The fact that only 2 of the top 8 drug companies are American does not help our situation at all....they use our resources (govt and charitable) to develop their drugs and then take their high CEO salaries and profits elsewhere. There is a reason that they are doing this in the US, and I think it is because there are more funds available here....and also that FDA approval is important for any drug. I think these research funds should be 'loans' and if the end product is a profitable drug, they should be repaid (replenish a research loan fund). Bottom line is that this money started out in our pockets (the taxpayers) to develop a product that they are selling. Your calculation of our 'average' price for the drug, because we have some citizens who get it free or subsidized, does not help the average US person on this list who is needing access to a drug. For that individual person, why should Tasigna be $7200/month in the US and several thousand dollars cheaper per month in Canada? I really don't think that most of us in the US on this list are wealthier than those on the list from Canada or the UK? Both health insurance companies and drug companies have a strong hold here in the US.....which we are having a devil of a time trying to break with any health care reform. They love it here!! Do you know that health insurance companies here are immune from the Anti-trust laws. They love their big salaries and their big profits...but give us a decade, and I honestly believe that this situation will change (incrementally). Then maybe there can be (will have to be) a partnership in drug development, and the govt. can be re-imbursed for it's part in developing a successful drug. That's my 2-cents. C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2009 Report Share Posted December 25, 2009 Hi , I agree with almost every word of the below - no matter how much a country abhors 'big government' one of the most important jobs you need a government for is to stop monopolistic suppliers shafting the purchaser. The situation would still be the same though even if every single penny of the development funding had come from the drug company. The fact of public / charity funding certainly (and quite rightly) adds to our outrage, but it is the abuse of a monopoly position which is the real problem and tackling that is where the solution has to lie. All the best Phil PS - half past five on a Christmas morning and my bowels have got me up before my children do. The joys of Glivec! Merry Christmas to one and all and may Santa bring you health, happiness and a big pointy stick to poke drug company executives when needed. > > > > > > > Hi , > > Whilst I'd agree with many of your points, I think the issue of whether the > > company provided all the research funding itself is something of a red > > herring here. The charity and governmental contributions aren't intended to > > be investments paying a commercial return, they are incentives to the wider > > research community, including the drug companies, to promote the discovery > > of cures. > > > > The real issue here is the age-old one that free-market economics (of which > > I am a very strong supporter) only work if combined with regulation to > > prevent abuse by monopolies / cabals such as anti trust laws. > > > > When a drug co has the only product to keep a patient alive, that is a > > perfect example of a monopoly and if unrestrained the potential for 'abuse' > > of this monopoly position is massive. Currently the only real protection out > > there is patent expiry - allowing the companies free reign, but for a > > limited period. Given the literally life and death nature of the issues > > involved, however, I cannot believe this is sufficient protection given the > > drug company directors have a legal duty to screw as much money out of the > > patients / healthcare providers as they can. There are no easy answers to > > this (there never are in regulating monopoly providers), but I believe there > > is a clear role for some governmental regulation of the market here. If I > > have to weigh up my sympathies between a poor old drug company forced to > > choose 'pay at our price or don't sell in our country' or a patient told by > > the drug company 'pay at OUR price or die' I'm not going to shed too many > > tears for the company - provided the regulated price still gives sufficient > > incentive to develop new cures. > > > > One thing that we can be absolutely clear on though is that allowing free > > importation of drugs from other countries should NOT be the way forward. If > > you do that the inevitable consequence is a fixed global price for the drugs > > which will be at a level much higher than developing countries can afford > > and instantly condemn patients in those countries to death. > > > > Phil (yet another accountant) > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.