John, I'm a Good Guy, but some points you might want to consider.
Prescription data is extremely useful information, but having 18 years in Roche marketing I've learned that it is extremely difficult to extrapolate this information to annualized sales. There are two major problems: the patients and the prescriptions.
The patients: 1) They may stop due to side effects (look to the clinical trials to find the side effect drop out rates.) The may stop due to efficacy (in this case, fairly small). Or the may stop due to compliance (drugs with high efficicacy, few side effects, and convenient dosing only have an 86% compliance rate. Thus the $5650 side is the absolute high end and is never seen in reality.
The prescription: Anything that generates a new prescription number creates a New Prescription. Some causes are: 1) the patient changes pharmacies for better prices, 2) the patient's insurance plan changes, 3) the doctor may order few or no refills, 4) the patient may initially see a specialist for the first Rx, then their primary care doc for chronic therapy.
Like election night, the numbers are extrapolated from much smaller samples. For example, a national chain like Walgreens submits data (virtually all national chains are involved) and the data is extrapolated to clinic pharmacies, independent retail stores, physician offices, hospitals and remaining chains. As most national chains are concentrated in high population areas where most AIDS cases are concentrated, the resulting number may be exaggerated. Additionally, patients who are long term therapy tend to frequent chain stores for the lower prices.
Two final points. Margie's comparison is fairly valid, though new drugs usually will generate more new prescription as patients shop around. I'm not sure, but i don't think even Merck generated $750mm last year.
$150-250mm is probably more realistic, but very good for the new kid on the block. |
