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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (3038)	12/4/2007 7:35:02 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Where do you think these folks think they will generate their profit from? The socialized medical systems or America? If you were unable to answer America you appear to remain remain willfully ignorant. Do you think we should pay double the rest of the world for gasoline to support oil exploration? Do you think we should pay double the rest of the world for iPods so that Apple has more money for R&D? Why do you think we should subsidize the rest of the world with high drug prices? What percentage of our higher drug prices goes into marketing? If you watch TV you might have noticed that one of the most frequently advertised categories is drugs.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (3038)	12/4/2007 7:41:06 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42652

Marketing versus Research and Development More than 90,000 drug reps, 50% more "detail men" than there were 4 years ago, now roam the halls of our hospitals providing the free lunch, symposia, samples, and marketing pamphlets. 1 And this method of marketing is extremely expensive, about $150-$200 dollars per visit for a 4 minute visit (on average). 2 Meanwhile, every lunch eaten, every gift accepted, every detailing visit inevitably adds to the overall cost of drugs. Marketing, R&D and Industry Profits on Trial Drug prices continue to rise at alarming rates. The industry claims that Americans are forced to pay for high priced pharmaceuticals to offset the incredible expense of research and development (R&D). And yet, the number of research jobs in the pharmaceutical industry has remained virtually the same since 1995. By contrast, the number of marketing jobs has increased by more than 60%. 3 In addition to job distribution, pharmaceutical companies clearly place more financial backing towards the marketing of their drugs rather than researching and developing new drugs. The top nine U.S. drug companies in 2001 were spending only 11 percent of sales on research and development (far less than profits) while 27% of sales revenue was going towards "marketing and administration." 4 For most of the past decade, the pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable in the United States. A startling statistic: in 2002 the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses together (33.7 billion). In a industry which such exorbitant profits, surely the cost of drugs could be lowered drastically without even coming close to cutting a R&D budget. . Has R&D funding led to innovative discoveries of new drugs? The new drugs produced in 2002, for example, demonstrate that recent R&D has hardly fostered innovation. Of the seventy-eight drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only seventeen contained new active ingredients. Furthermore, the FDA classified only seven of these as improvements over older drugs. The other seventy-one drugs were marginal variations of existing drugs (commonly referred to as "me-too" drugs). 5 amsa.org