Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech News -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (139)	7/5/2000 10:27:51 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Respond to of 7143

<<This is a subjective statement. We are indeed 'willing' and, in fact, compelled to pay the price in incredibly expensive drugs. If we were 'unwilling' to pay the price then why would this be on the national agenda in the first place? It is precisely because we are forced to 'pay the price' that the topic is current. >> You are twisting my words (post contest) and playing game with emotions. If incredible expensive drug , (relative or absolute base?) for instance Zytromax, work well and ordinary cheap and generic antibiotic do not for certain bacterial infections, than what is incredible expensive in this drug? Price versus benefit? Isn’t than great shame on those who are selling and physicians who are prescribing drugs (and charge for that) which do not work? The market value component is in drug price, not only cost of the developing and making drug. The question is how to incorporate and value this market component in drug price and at which point this become incredible over-priced. When I can’t afford to pay for drug ? When I have other choice and option? When I do not have benefit from this drug? When I resist and oppose forced to pay? I can live without new PC or phone service, but I can’t with disease in my body! Should PFE price Zytromax as ordinary generic antibiotic? The current big problem in US health care system is huge disparity in those who can afford new very expensive drugs (with or without medical-health insurance), and those who can not! How to make this drug available to all and at what cost to public (Medicare cost for instance)? I have no doubt (and I guess you) that pharma-industry is not driven by humanity or ethic alone. It is driven also by profit, and it should stay that way. So, if a development cost of new and better drugs, progress in medicine and health science, will rise in future (and I think that it will), we should be prepared to pay price of this progress. One component of this progress price is steady rise in price of new drug compared to old one, and will continue until system inverse and we get all medical treatment and medications without any direct cost (extreme-end option). All what general public see is huge drug price and huge gross profit (70,80, 90,..%) in pharma-bios drug revenue. So, their reaction is clear: cut in gross profit and lover drug price. Period. Normally that pharma industry can’t and it should not pass all of the risk of doing business to the consumers (as medications cost). They should handle their own risk, with proportional reward-profit for accepting risk. I agree that pharma industry shouldn’t be self-regulated, and self-policed by uncontrolled and their own drug price policy. It will be the worse industrial monopoly that we may see. Drug price structure and how to incorporate different factors in this structure should be debated with economic stand point, not by politicians (from both side) games in election year when they use public emotion (and current problems) for their personal gain. For sure investors concern for return should not be significant factor which will regulate drug-price policy, but without this investment new-industry (like bio-medicine) will not grow. If bio-sector didn’t have huge inflow of the $$$ in 4Q-99/1Q00, disappearance from business scene was very serious and real treat. The sector was at collapse point. Can you eliminate this economic element in future industry policy? Isn’t true that this fresh $$$ will generate higher and healthy competition standards, and in future humanity will benefit from it? Isn’t true that this investment will accelerate further progress in life science? Should we eliminate investment factor, put it away, and let bio-sector and pharma-industry live on its own? Cheap drugs now, but limited new drugs in future, or delay in new drugs. Health care was debated 8 years ago and today we have some story again. I do not think that any political debate will solve problems. In west-EU countries goverment regulated health care system and it worked well for many years. However, as the cost of system rise government can’t any longer pay for system and they are changing policy. I didn’t read NYT article and have no idea where to find similar study, if there is any. I guess concern over rise in drug price and medical cost will trigger new large study on this issue and this are good time to start one. However, I am not sure that any study will ever be objective, but it may point where are problems and how to solve it. Over-priced drugs isn’t the only problems, imo. Pharma-industry comps will continue to take advantage of the current system. I am sure that they do overdue on cost basis in drug pricing. How to control them and put in order is one thing, but educate public and explain what is involved in policy of this sector is another. Regards the public academic institution and their compensations I am not sure that they aren’t fairly treated. Do they have any risk if drug failed? The some is for bios-pharma deal. Do you think that bios are fairly treated in these deals? However, for academia and bios things are improving. Their programs are treated with more respect and with pressure from public compensation will rise. Miljenko