posted on March 14, 2002 05:00:59 PM new
Ponder this, then please spread the word. Americans have a right to know
just how much they are being ripped offf!!!!
What drugs really cost.
Brand Name --- Consumer Price -- Cost of generic -- Percent Markup
posted on March 15, 2002 05:55:36 AM new
Any wonder why health insurance costs so much? Any wonder why our congressmen, who own many shares in pharmaceutical companies, can't get it together to subsidize the costs? Such a plan would be scrutinized to the extent that the revenues would be lower, so the market value(stock) would be worth less.
posted on March 15, 2002 12:41:41 PM new
Borillar, there's a big stink going on with the U.S. and Canada about this. Americans are buying drugs from Canada through the internet, etc. Some of the prices are said to be up to 75% cheaper than the U.S. prices. The bad thing about this is the cost of drugs for AIDS related treatments and chemo drugs. They are up to 50% higher in the U.S. Doesn't that make you sick???
"Sometimes when we touch, the honesty's too much....."
posted on March 15, 2002 07:31:05 PM new
And that's just the mark up on legal drugs.
The war on drugs keeps the price of recreational drugs jacked up also.
What ya gonna do? You can't run off a batch of Zestril in your kitchen.....
posted on March 17, 2002 11:33:08 AM new
NearTheSea, you have to realize that drugs are like gold: their price fluctuates constantly due to efforts by some brave individuals who are trying to get costs lowered, or by legistlation that comes to the table, and then gets knocked down due to lobbying efforts and payoffs of your and my elected representatives in government. There are other reasons. Your $10 medicine today could easily become $100 in a blink - and wink AND nod.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Mar 17, 2002 11:34 AM ]
posted on March 17, 2002 05:27:15 PM new
Well are you happy with generic drugs?
Most people (not all) can take them in place of the name brand, and there is a huge difference in price.
I cannot take the generic of Tenormin which is Aetenlol. I also take Klonopin (as a seizure control medication) but cannot take Clonazapam the generic.
However, people I talk to can and do take generic meds, and they have the choice to pick; the cheaper generic, or the higher priced name brand.
posted on March 17, 2002 06:16:28 PM new
I don't know anything "meaningful" about the pharmaceutical industry myself, DeSquirrel, beyond its trickle-down impact upon my parents' lives via Kaiser. They both take meds that would cost hundreds of dollars a month (according to Kaiser) if they weren't fortunate enough to have flat-fee coverage for prescriptions which cost just five bucks per Rx (up, after thirty years, from one dollar), no matter what it is or the quantity prescribed. Frankly, I've never understood how Kaiser does it. Up until this past year, when Bay Area gasoline prices soared to among the highest in the nation, Kaiser would deliver a one-dollar prescription for one dollar!
I think it's absurd that some people -- through current or previous employment (as in my retired parents' case) -- pay next-to-nothing for myriad healthcare services and prescriptions while less 'beneficially' employed people and retirees are gouged or forced -- due to fixed-income financial constraints -- to go without medical treatment.
A couple of years ago, Americans were swarming into Mexico for inexpensive prescription drugs. Now it's Canada and the Internet. The fact that many (most?) can't get a fair deal here on the drugs they need says everything I need to know about Glaxo-Wellcome, Lilly, et al. They're profiteering corporations -- nothing wrong with that, I suppose, given that "business is the business of America" BUT, doesn't it seem odd to you -- given that we (U.S.) heavily subsidize the airline industry and the farmers (Hah! What a misnomer that is anymore!) -- that the the U.S. hasn't/won't structure a similar "deal" with the drug companies to provide their products at a reasonable cost to all who need them? Much of their "costly research" is already obliquely subsidized by our universities, afterall...
What's your solution, or do you even perceive there to be a problem in this area?
First of all I don't see what level of insurance a person carries has to do with the price of a drug. Do you sell your widgets on a sliding scale based on the buyers income???
This thread is designed to play on sympathies and not facts. It's to create an us vs them scenario. The basic premise is moronic: ie: a drug is made from 50 cents worth of chemicals and they charge $20. This is inferred from the copyrighted vs generic schtick. After a copyright has expired and the chemicals cost that 50 cents, a outside company can charge that 55 cents. As has been pointed out also these drugs are not all the same. Many studies have been done and blood levels and percent of the actual compound can vary widely. Also generics can vary greatly from batch to batch. For many meds, this is ok. But if your doctor feels you need the "original" that's what you get.
I live in the center of the pharmaceutical industry and many of my friends work for the companies. One heads Schering-Plough's "writing" department, which prepares the paperwork for FDA certification. Her budget alone is in the millions, nevermind the actual testing and reformulations required for certification which is in the tens of millions. Then that of course is only for the drugs sent for certification which is only a few percent of company projects. Then there is the number that actually GET certified. All of this has to be paid for. You have to add the money to fight and pay the lawsuits when the evil conglomerate lowers your blood pressure and you get hives 20 years later.
As to the "university" money chestnut, I don't know where that comes from, though I've seen Borillar and Auroranorth throw it around. I suggest you look up the R & D expenditures of the chemical industry and compare it to the ENTIRE amount of University funding.
Interesting that you mention Glaxo. Years ago, Glaxo discovered a mechanism in the production of stomach acid and developed Zantac. When I had read about this research, I immediately bought Glaxo stock. Well, Zantac was a miracle drug and had no side effects. When I had to take it later on it was very expensive. Now that the copyright has expired Zantac is sold over the counter in lower doses. But more important than that is the fact that it spawned dozens of related drugs. I doubt it would even be developed under a regulated system.
posted on March 17, 2002 08:09:52 PM new
"I doubt it would even be developed under a regulated system."
Damn! Pardon me here, DeSquirrel, I'm having a deja vu moment. Hoping Irene can flesh it out for me...
In the meantime, I don't myself see "what level of insurance a person carries has to do with the price of a drug." But I know for a bald fact that Kaiser gives my folks a shitload of pills for a pittance while I, myself, (uninsured) am forced to pay through-the-nose for prescription drugs. That's why I entered this thread without a "hahaha" and a sixpack, DeSquirrel; I wanted you to explain to me why we have these wildly high/low drug costs -- if you can.
The university "money chestnut" comes from first-hand knowledge: relatives of mine employed by Stanford have spent decades researching/developing everything from aspirin substitutes to fiber optics. While Stanford does take a liberal approach to these people's efforts (by allowing them a percentage of the patent rights, where applicable) the real money is made in forking over the research to the corporations who can (and do) make something of it.
Why do you think that a regulated system would thwart creativity and development? Take a step back from your position and think about what you're implying...
posted on March 17, 2002 08:11:03 PM new
Desquirrel your a fool
dont give me that crap about millions in testing that is slick drug company propaganda to justify ripping off the taxpayers.
Bovine growth hormone was tested for 6 weeks on 42 cows before the fda said ok the next day the jerk wad that said ok took a job with monsanto
I am far from one who feels we owe the masses something but you take self righteous nonsense peddled with an almost crimiinal intent to new extremes.
I remember you from the imbecility of your statement about not needing seasons because some company in New Jersey can grow a few tomatoes indoors.
You cannot possibly be that dumb. Bonilar is right you post just to come up with the most nonsensical things you can preponderate. either that or your employed by the republican national committee's as a fund raiser.
posted on March 17, 2002 09:09:35 PM new
Auroranorth,
You read much worse than you spell. As I've stated before most of this stuff is inventions of yours. You'll have to find where I mentioned not needing seasons, and of course I said nothing about owing the masses anything. And as to what the BGH controversy has to do with drug certification, I haven't a clue. Unless of course you think Monsanto is overcharging the vets. If you mean drug certification doesn't cost anything or is done in sleazy back rooms, you seem to be losing touch with reality.
Plsmith,
I still don't get the comparison between you and your folks. If millions of people with a drug plan pay premiums, the drugs are still being paid for aren't they? I thought that was the selling point for insurance. One of the insurance industries biggest complaints is the cost of drugs. I also am unclear about how Stanford turns over the info. Do you mean by publishing scientific papers? Around here, the chemical companies pump hundreds of millions in donations not to mention surplus equipment into public and private universities. Now, of course, this is not due to altruism. It is a tax deduction, but THAT is immaterial to the fact.
posted on March 17, 2002 09:18:43 PM new
You are lying outright about the seasons remark, you are the one inventing. you cannot stick to a specific because you could care less. I have determined yuo to be a serial poster.
posted on March 17, 2002 09:42:58 PM new
Arrggghhh, DeSquirrel, I can't tell if I'm being unclear or if you're being purposely obtuse about this! Let me proceed as if it is the former... All I was asking you for -- as someone who implied they knew, or sensed, or in some way divined -- was a dumbed-down explanation (for those of us who require "a + b + c" delivery of the facts) for why there exists this vast discrepancy in drug prices. Is it really as simple (to you) as "supply vs. demand" or the drug companies taking advantage of "whatever the market will bear"? Do you have any financial compassion for those who, unlike you, weren't "in on" Glaxo-Wellcome's development of Zantac (and therefore able to make a "killing" on their stock)? Do you have an opinion about the skyrocketing costs of basic (as in, one takes them or one dies) drugs like blood-pressure meds and many people's inability to pay for them? Do you think it's just "too bad" for those that can't afford such medication? Don't you think, in the instance of healthcare in particular, this is one area where the government ought to step in and make some fundamental rules and extend some fundamental rights? If not, why not? Would you abolish Social Security, too?
As to Stanford, all I know is that relatives of mine have develope d both technologies and drugs and their findings have A) added to Stanford's prestige, B) made my relatives pretty wealthy due to patents, C) provided Stanford with rights to these discoveries which it then sells to relevant companies for development and marketing. These relatives of mine were not on any corporate payroll (beyond Stanford) yet the fruits of their research and experimentation have directly benefitted many corporations. That's what I meant when I referred to "oblique subsidization".
Funny, I've always thought of you as acereal poster. Ship ahoy, Cap'n Crunch...
posted on March 17, 2002 11:34:06 PM new
Having a somewhat rare nerve disease, I've had the displeasure of waiting and waiting for medications for treatment. There are drugs I've been waiting several years for....I don't know if all drugs go through the research and testing that these particular ones do, but at least some of them seem to justify initial high prices when they finally go to market.
On the other hand, when the pharmaceutical companies have an accidental winner on their hands, and they end up selling scads more than they ever guessed, they should have the decency to lower the price per pill! Take Neurontin, for instance. Originally developed as an anti-convulsant, they guessed they would sell X of this drug. Well, it turns out that it also happens to do wonders for nerve pain ( fun stuff like post herpetic neuralgia, and reflex symathetic dystrophy, and I think diabetic neuropathy). So now they sell X times 50 of the drug for these off label uses. Great, I'm glad they help...but at a buck a pill (I take my nine per day), they are raking it in. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the research and testing costs if the drug companies didn't pull stunts like this.
posted on March 18, 2002 07:46:47 AM new
"Certainly not Borillar, since he knows absolutely nothing about the pharmaceutical industry."
DeSquirrel: Whom would I appoint? I'll go down to the local grocery store and see if there is a comic book for you, so you can understand things.
As far as the research baloney excuse goes, you and I already PAY for that research through government subsidies to Universities and colleges. That's what the bulk of research comes from, not pharmaceutical companies. When Taxil (or Laetrile. I can't remember which exactly) was created from the labs of government, taxpayer paid for research from a university, the patent for it was GIVEN FOR FREE, gratis, to a pharmaceutical company, who then turned right around and began to charge everyone $2,500 PER OUNCE! And what was their excuse for charging so much, DeSquirrel? I'll let you go look it up and provide a link here for everyone to read about it.
posted on March 18, 2002 08:47:37 AM new
Serial poster? what is that?
Anyway, seriously. If anyone, anyone in this U.S. cannot afford the drug they have to take, there is a couple 'big name' drug companies that will supply you free with them.
I knew another patient who could not afford them at all, and had to have them. He had to fill out forms with his dr, and forms supplied by the drug company. He got monthly supplies of the name brand drug... which were sent directly to his dr.
If it won't hurt your pride? or whatever you can do this if you really need certain drugs. I'm not sure if it was Eli Lilly or which one... but they do do it.
The state will also provide medical, as I'm sure all of you know. A couple ways. State medicaid provides medical and fee preciptions for those that qualify (no income or really low income) then there is basic state coverage (I know someone that has this, they own a small business, and cannoth afford health ins.) they pay a very very very low premium, and get prescriptions, any prescription for $10 co pay. This one is not medicaid, but a state sponspored medical insurance. I think here its called 'Basic Health'
I am fortunate enough to have always been able to have good medical insurance. But I pay A LOT for my prescriptions, that I absolutely need.
But there is alternatives, and there is ways for everyone, underemployed, unemployed, poverty level whatever to get medical insurance and lowered prescription coverage.
you just need to look for it.
ABSOLUTELY there is a factor of "what the market will bear". But we were talking about the cost of an item which is totally separate from the need for the item. If I buy a jug for 25 cents and fill it with water, doesn't it still cost a quarter even if someone is dying of thirst in the Sahara? Now if you desire to find a solution to the need that is a different story. If a solution is to regulate prices, how would you regulate them? You could cap profits at say 5%, but why, for example, would Johnson & Johnson want to go through the hassles of producing pharmaceuticals when it could crank out bandaids and disposable diapers for 5%? The government could undertake drug manufacture and development, but I guess that would mean we would soon be importing drugs. You could streamline certification so that Argh could sign a release and be allowed to take a new drug. All I know is the quest to make a buck is the most powerful force on earth and if you are going to count on altuism to supply those in need you'll wait a long time.
It's an endless quagmire.
Not to belabor the point, but you took me to task about things being "forked over" by Stanford to the private sector and then said they were "sold for development". I'm sure if any marketable products came about, all concerned were happy.
Borillar,
Interesting that you use a quack drug to present an argument (somehow). But keep those cards and letters coming.
posted on March 19, 2002 08:13:03 AM new"I knew another patient who could not afford them at all, and had to have them. He had to fill out forms with his dr, and forms supplied by the drug company. He got monthly supplies of the name brand drug... which were sent directly to his dr. "
-NearTheSea-
NearTheSea, you are not familiar with how that came about. Originally, Congress (when Democratic) was about to regulate the pricing of drugs from drug companies, due to public outrage over sky-high pricing rocketing above everyone's means. That's called "gouging the public" and it's quazi-illegal (DeSquirrel).
In response to the threat that they might have the governement controlling their extortionist practices on the American people, the drug companies promised Congress in the hearing that they would always make certain of their more expensive drugs free to those that qualified for it.
NearTheSea, you can qualify for Food Stamps long before you can qualify for free meds! It's not impossible, but you pretty much have to be destitute.
What about everyone else? You know, the ones that aren't on the $300,000 per year income bracket that drug companies price their drugs for? Does the person who makes an income of only $10 more than they can qualify for on that program for free meds, what about them? Does the $10 actually allow them to afford super-expensive drugs? Hell, people in that income bracket can't even afford medical insurance of any sort. What about them? What about those who make a mere $100 too much to qualify for free meds? Or a thousand?
posted on March 19, 2002 09:02:13 AM new
I don't know how it works. I don't know if you have to be destitute
I only know what I know from my friends who owned a business, a B&M gift antique store.
They did have money, not a whole lot, enough to let them go 2 sometimes 3 x a year to Europe to buy for their store.
They qualified for this Basic Health here, in WA state. This is now... not awhile ago, now.
Yes she HAS to have a certain drug now. The drs are almost certain she has ovarian cancer, which is really hard to dx in women.
Yes, she had to have the name brand drug. Yes she got it with her $10 co pay.
However, she and her husband DO go to Europe for medical treatment and dentistry, because it is cheaper. But what her symptoms were recently, needed her to seek immediate treatment here, hence, they used their Basic Health 'state' insurance.
No, they are not cheating on any forms, they do qualify for this.
I don't know about the comparison for foodstamps and medical through the state.
About the drug companies that give this out. The person that did that was not destitute.
He simply could NOT afford the interfuron (sp???) which as you might know costs thousands per month, depending on how severe, or his need for it, his did, for Hep C.
posted on March 19, 2002 09:36:46 AM new
You can't afford it = gouging
Even a total idiot knows the 2 sides of this equation are not related.
While waiting for the free stuff to flow in Wyeth (not a huge player) spent 1.9 Billion on R & D in 2001.
FDA approval requires a minimum (sometimes more) of 3 levels of certification. Cost of certification: 250-300 million.
Number of applications (drugs) granted certification: 1 in 10,000.
Within the copyright every effort is made to recoup this AND turn a profit. After the copyright expires many drugs are still only available from the proprietary vendor because the limited number of users vs the production costs isn't worth it to the companies waiting to get in on the gouging.
BTW Borillar, these are actual figures, not "Everybody knows" or the opinions of the feature writer from the Calcutta Times.
posted on March 19, 2002 11:39:56 AM new"Yes she got it with her $10 co pay."
OHo! CO-PAY!
Now that REALLY changes your initial post in this forum, NearTheSea.
How much would all of these drugs cost without the insurance company paying 60%-99% of the cost?
You know, many Americans(43%) and others who live in this country can not afford medical insurance of any kind; nor do their employers even offer it (too expensive!)
As for your friends and the free meds, I have no doubt that everything that you said is true. However, IF it was widely known that average people could somehow qualify for this give-away, free program -- like advertising it on TV, radio, magazine ads, announced in public schools and on college campuses everywhere, do you think the program would continue for very long?
posted on March 19, 2002 11:44:38 AM new
BTW, AuroraNorth: your posts have become much better in the quality of the content and the spelling/grammar/punctuation. Don't let some posters bother you about it: it's always been considered childish here in the RT for one poster to cast scorn upon another poster for spelling and grammar. The more that we participate, the better our English writing skills improve.
posted on March 19, 2002 12:42:37 PM new
desquirrel your are pulling figures out of a hat,to add some semblance of truth to your foolish poorly thought out ideas, when hit with the facts you cast aspersions and engage in evasion. You are the clown who said we do not need seasons that you could prove some company growing plants hydroponically could feed us all that shear asinity of such as staement is beyond comprehension. But then so are the rest of your arguments. You think back to the good ole days Like when Teddy Roosevelt called the subway workers etriking in ny communists. when in fact they only wanted 1 day a weekoff from the 7 14 they were working. It is rapacious people like you a ,hasha I think spanish people call them a pig that never gets enough that were responsible for the rise of the marxists. Your drug companies according to you are soem pious place where sanctimonious doo gooders get together and worl all day for almost nothing to better mankind. YEAH RIGHT.
This makes me think that not enough women breast feed anymore.
posted on March 19, 2002 12:53:46 PM new
As usual, dusquirrel, you lose.
Once makers have a patent on a chemical formula, they have a de facto monopoly and can charge the public as much as they want. And they do: According to The Wall Street Journal, the drug industry's profits are "the envy of the corporate world." In 1998 Fortune magazine rated pharmaceuticals as the top industry based on return on revenues, return on assets, and return on equity.
Poor picked on pharmues..
It's true that many of the best drugs of recent years have been made by American
companies. But it's not at all clear that they deserve the credit. The National Institutes of Health does a third of the nation's research, in terms of money, and is responsible for some of the most powerful drugs ever: penicillin, polio vaccine, and AZT. Although the U.S. pharmaceutical industry claims to fund roughly 43 percent of the country's research, that figure is misleading. The Office of Technology Assessment found in 1993 that two-thirds of research goes to "copycat" drugs---drugs designed to replicate the effect of a drug patented by another company. And according to the U.S. Senate Committee on
Aging, "many of the dollars drug manufacturers claim are spent on research are actually spent on marketing research."
In other words, they waste our money trying to compete for the successful markets of others
Furthermore, private companies often make enormous profits from taxpayer-funded research. Taxol, for example, a powerful anti-cancer drug developed almost entirely by
the federal government, costing taxpayers about $35 million, is licensed to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Taxol costs 30-40 cents per miligram to manufacture, according to James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology. Pharmacies retail it for $62 per miligram.
Now what were you saying about costs vs. benefits?
It's also clear that drugs are priced according to what the market will bear, not according to the cost of their research. Thanks to patent protections, drugs that cost a dollar or two to manufacture can sell for hundreds. Take Levamisole, for example, a drug known to be effective in preventing colon cancer from recurring after surgery. Patients must take the drug for a year, and for a year's supply Johnson & Johnson charged $1,500. But if you bought the same amount of Levamisole from another company for treating sheep, you would pay just over $14, according to a doctor at New York City's Mayo Clinic.
Since people are willing to pay more than animal keepers, Johnson & Johnson made a killing. But it's likely that some people who couldn't afford the drug died.
Maybe the way to fend off these costs is to see a veterinarian?
[b]Of the 15 largest drug makers, all had marketing, selling, and administrative
expenses that were at least 78 percent higher than their own claimed figures for research
and development[/b]. Thanks to revisions in Food and Drug Administration policies in 1985
and 1997, drug companies now spend tremendous amounts on direct-to-consumer marketing. Spending in this area went from $55.3 million in 1991 to $1.3 billion in 1998,increasing more than twentyfold. They also spend a lot of money marketing their drugs to doctors, often at lavish vacation "seminars." Spending a long weekend in Honolulu isn't exactly the best way for a doctor to make impartial decisions about what he should prescribe for his patients, particularly when you consider that the companies funding these junkets are paid to sell drugs, not to tell the truth. In addition, drug companies spend vast amounts on lobbying campaigns to have their patents extended so they can continue to reap the harvest without sharing.
