Big Pharma Is Killing Us

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by Pax Aeon, Jun 8, 2015.

  1. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    "As drug costs continue to climb, we're creating a two-tiered society: those who can afford to pay to stay alive, and those who can't. - Drug company profits are literally killing people - and now even doctors are speaking out.Dr. Leonard Saltz, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, rebuked the pharmaceutical industry for the sharp rise in cancer drug prices over the last decade.

    The median monthly price for new cancer drugs nearly doubled between 2000 and 2014 - from a monthly cost of $4,716 between 2000 and 2004 to a monthly cost of about $9,900 between 2010 and 2014. Dr. Saltz explained part of the problem: "Cancer-drug prices are not related to the value of the drug. Prices are based on what has come before and what the seller believes the market will bear." And that's a neat feature of our current patent system: Drug companies don't have to worry about what people can afford to pay for a product. Because monopolies set their own prices" - source
    `
    ******************************************************************************************​
    `
    Let's take cancer for an example. It's fair to say Americans have willingly contributed to cancer research to the tune of hundreds of billions, over the years. Excluding the fact that most of these so-called cancer charities end of only sending only 10% (minus the 6 figure salaries they make) or less, to actual research, which benefits the malevolent pharma industry, there is no just reason for them to charge so much for drugs that could benefit so many.

    I know my enemies and they sit all pristinely suited-up in boardroom across the U.S.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  2. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    "Big Pharma", isn't the problem, it is "big regulation". It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for drug companies to research, develop and test new drugs, meet regulations all of which make them no money at all until the drug is finally approved for use by the FDA, then there is a period of time that no "generics" can compete with them. Why? because there must be a way for them to re-coop their development costs or they can't afford to develop new drugs.. The same drug developed by a foreign Country costs much less to develop and can be marketed much quicker, thereby reducing it's cost when it comes on the market and it is available to the patients that need it much quicker. Big Pharms fault or the Federal Governments over regulation? You decide based on the facts available to you.

    Either the Government pays development and testing costs or they reduce their costly regulations. Big Pharma is not the enemy IMO it is over regulation by the Federal government, over taxing.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes we don't need regulation and testing because this never happens

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22556736

    And even disregarding that we NEVER have incidents like the Vioxx (Rofeoxib)

    No, let's deregulate until we hit the level of drug safety found in Nigeria

    http://www.economist.com/node/21564546
     
  4. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    I didn't say we need to deregulate to the point regulating the drug would be unsafe. But our Federal Regulations go beyond that of the Countries you liberals proudly promote for their Universal Health Care. Many cancer patients and aids patients are forced to travel over seas to get new medications because they can't get them in the U.S. because they are still in the "test" stage. The FDA apparently doesn't acknowledge the results of the these drugs that are already under use in other 1st World Countries. This raises the cost of the these drugs when finally approved. Apparently you think private drug companies should do the research, develop new drugs, wait years for it to be approved and not be able to re-coop their costs for doing so. Just as I bet you believe it is physicians and surgeons greed that raises the cost of health care. You are so unknowledgeable and so wrong. It is the Federal Government that caused premiums to rise and the cost of medical care to rise. Do you even understand the difference between rising premiums and rising cost of medical care and rising costs to provide medical care? All three are different and caused by different factors.

    Democrats claim the cost of medical care has been reduced by the PPACA. Not true. The cost the Federal Government pays for medical care has gone down, only due to stagnant medicare reimbursement rates, medicare covering less and, on the private insurance side, premiums have decreased solely due to subsidies and exchange policies approving less medical facilities and providers as in network. In fact, many of these companies contacted the physicians that have been in network providers for years and advised them that if they sign up for these "exchange" plans they will be paid less than "Medicaid" rates. Basically telling them to not sign up to be providers on these plans. These same providers are in network on these companies, non-exchange plans and are reimbursed double the rate. If this continues, it will definitely drive private physicians/providers out of business or they will start requiring cash payment and not accept any insurance at all. Most of them are only able to stay in business from money they make on outside investments in pharmacies, surgical centers, medical equipment companies. Without this income they would go bankrupt. Most do not earn enough in fees to stay in business and/or make a profit. At some point it simply will no longer be worth it.

    That is what the Democrats want to happen, then the Federal Government can take over and all physicians will be Federal Employees and all medical facilities owned by the U.S. Government. Hence, Socialism.
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And your proof that these overseas medications are "safe" "proven" or even exist?? Tell me, what first world countries are using drugs not available in the USA?

    Listen mate if some bloody journalist somewhere is promoting a "cure" for cancer that does not mean it bloody works!!

    http://www.mamamia.com.au/wellbeing/another-day-another-natural-cancer-treatment-proven-tragic-lie/
     
  6. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    I am not here to educate you. Look it up for yourself. Why do you think citizens of the U.S. go to Europe or other Countries for new drug or surgical treatments? Duh. You know the Countries with Universal health care people such as you desire and claim are so much better that the U.S. Health Care System. You can't have it both ways.
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh! yes we can - we can have a better overall health care system by maintaining standards and that means spending money on ensuring that cancer treatments actually work as opposed to claims of cancer treatments working
     
  8. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Perhaps you should talk to actual cancer patients that have been subject to "clinical" test for various new drugs. Many of which are already being used in Europe. Standards are good but over regulation raises the cost of the drugs once they are approved. What part of this process don't you understand? You talk about "spending money". It is private drug companies spending the money. Not the Federal Government.

    The title of the thread is "big pharma killing us". IMO they are not. What you say?
     
  9. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you have any idea of how much government oversight and regulations have on the cost of drugs?

    First of all, a company will spend millions of dollars to create the basic drug designed for a specific disease. They then go through an amazing process of testing, all the while constrained by rules set by the FDA. Once the drug reaches human testing, further bureaucratic interference slows down the process. Now that's completed and the company applies to send the drug out for clinical tests - it will be reviewed by an Advisory Committee that has the ultimate say so without appeal. And then, after extensive clinical testing, the drug once again goes before the Advisory Committee.

    All of this causes massive expenses that can only be recouped at the cash register.

    Ever wonder why a drug purchased in Canada or Mexico - exactly the same as purchased in the USA - is less?
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Maybe wild claims should be backed by facts - after all that is what people interested in winning debates do
     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Have you any idea how dangerous drugs can be? But a lot of price comes down to profits for big pharma

    I would suggest everyone reads this http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835182
    It is twelve pages long but details the issues nicely - one of your problems is not too much regulation but not enough regulation

    See we here in Aussie land set up a central buying facility for drugs and when a drug company comes to us with a drug WE helped develop and tries to whack us with a huge price tag we simply reply - rack off (or words to that effect) and inform them to come back when they have a reasonable price in mind. USA does not have a central buyer so it bcomes a sellers market
     
  12. Right is the way

    Right is the way Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had a discussion with a guy about this once. He was complaining that is med where to high and how big pharma was screwing everyone and he did not think it was fair what they charged. I told him nobody is forcing him to buy and take the drugs. He said that he would die with out them. My reply was that the drugs seem pretty cheap if if they are keeping you alive. Why do people think they should just get handed what ever they want at the price the want to pay. I mean if it can lengthen you live or give you a better quality of live then there has to be some value there. Right?
     
  13. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    So whats your beef? Big pharma charges too much for their drugs(due to higher standards and regulations)? Or new drugs cost more because due to government standards they have been proven to be safe and effective? Can't figure you out
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Big Pharma should NOT be profit before patients - end of story.

    VIOXX should never have come to the market the way it did because they KNEW it increased the risk of heart attacks

    Don't even get me started about the role in drug pushing and opiates.

    http://theweek.com/articles/541564/how-american-opiate-epidemic-started-by-pharmaceutical-company

    I am not saying they should not make a profit but that that they have to be held to a very high ethical standard - profit or not
     
  15. BrianBoo

    BrianBoo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So it's "big pharma's" fault that so many kids are hooked on opiates today as well? :roll:

    I gotcha. Pharmaceutical companies develop Oxy Morph for dying cancer patients in order that their remaining time on Earth isn't filled with misery, and when thieves steal this stuff, and kids start peddling it around schools.....it's somehow "big pharma's" fault?

    After about your 4th or 5th post blaming "big pharma" for all the ills of society, just thought you'd like to know it's getting real old. That is, for those of us that live in the real world.

     
  16. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Did you read what longknife said? You obviously don't know how much it costs a drug company to develop, test and get a new drug approved.. If you did you would understand what many of us are saying. There are plenty of facts out there that substantiate what we have posted. Look it up for yourself. I am tired of laziness.
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Wow! Talk about jumping the gun without reading the actual content!!

    IT IS NOT THE KIDS!!!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh! Mate - I did read and I know that many many drugs are actually initially researched by government money - your money!!

    and then there is this

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
     
  18. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the question is where the advertising money is being spent. Is it on the consumer discretionary drugs or the medically necessary drugs. Advertising is a Hugh cost for every product where consumers have significant choice. Competition lowers cost due to price shopping but raises it because of the necessity to have name recognition and brand image.
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The cost of developing a prescription drug that gains market approval is around $2.6 billion.

    http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/11/Tufts-Study-Finds-Big-Rise.html

    It ain't cheap for a reason. They can spend that money and never gain approval then, on top of that, if it ends up proving to be a problem after approval, they lose that money. Cheap manufacturers overseas, like in India basically just copy the drug without going through any of that R&D and approval.
     
  20. Jackster

    Jackster New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And i believe the average development period is something like 10-15years. Then there plenty that fall over in phase2 trials which would be 1/2 a billion and probably 5-7years of investors money flushed down the toilet.

    The other thing, is the FDA have such strict rules that keep US big pharma BIG. I can tell you little Aussie biotechs have no hope of raising the necessary funds to see a drug through to market. Big regulation ensures the big boys end up in partnership or them takeover and in that they take the distribution rights of course, so hold a monopoly on the drug.

    The fact (as you know) is, either the red tape gets cut or the prices remain high. Whatever govt and charities chip in is a pittance compared to private funds, if the return on investment isnt there then neither is the investor. Who in their right mind would invest for 10 years for a 50:1 shot to gain 20 year patient rights to only barely get their money back on it? You'd need something like a 50:1 return to break even given the long odds to a drug to market.
     
  21. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Give us the percentage of US citizens that go overseas for new drug or new surgical treatments. The only thing worth considering Is that when all tested and approved drugs and surgeries have been tried some will become so desperate as to try anything. And that is perfectly within their rights but don't try to pretend it is because the current system doesn't work to make drugs and surgical procedures safe.
     
  22. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All drugs have side effects and many can cause fatalities in a tiny percentage of people who take the drug. . It s a risk/ benefit analysis that works for the majority of drug users in the vast majority of cases.

    As for opiate epidemic. Opiates serve a very useful function when used properly. Want to have some fun go to India for major surgery and then find that opiates are so tightly controlled by the government that they are essentially unavailable for surgery patients. If people in the US want to abuse drugs that is clearly an individual choice they make.
     
  23. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually the hard data on spending to develop and test individual drugs is not available and facts are very much lacking. That said of course it is expensive particularly with certain types of drugs. That said look up Gileads profit margin
     
  24. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Well, if you can't find a website that provides the data on the average cost of developing, testing and paying regulatory costs to put a new drug on the market. Look up a specific drug and find this specific data.

    Our practice participates in various studies. We are paid to see patients, examine them and if they meet the criteria put them on the treatment program or drug being tested. This costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plus the Federal Government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars doing oversight on the tests. Many of these drugs are simple ointments. Many represent a treatment regime.

    It is federal regulation on steroids. The cost to the drug company ends up raising the initial cost of the drug once/if approved for use. Then, after X period of time another drug company is able to offer a generic of the drug.

    And, as to Bowerbird "Big Pharma should NOT be profit before patients - end of story", stupidest comment yet.
    By Big Pharma I assume you mean the drug company that developed and tested the drug submitting it for approval to the FDA.?
    Exactly why should they not be able to profit? The patient profits by the drug being available.

    Exactly what part of the process do you not understand?
     
  25. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Most of them are Cancer and Aids drugs. And, listen Mate, if you have cancer or aids you would likely want to try every drug and treatment available, and if that means going to the U.K. or another Country and you could afford to you would likely go to seek that treatment.

    Whether or is approved by the FDA, a process that can years, will likely not be a concern.
    There are many drugs that U.S. physicians believe are beneficial, but due to FDA regulations, they are unable to use, and that is why they advise their patients to go to the Countries that allow their/the drugs, use.

    If you have an illness/condition that is fatal/incurable, you should be allowed to try any drug or treatment available to you.
     

Share This Page