undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaantix8y ago0 comments

It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n...

With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world.

Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research.

No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.

0 comments

jonahhorowitz8y ago

This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

aantixOP8y ago

It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come.

The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company.

Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not).

>In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for

>an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your

>medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it. Only 5 in 5,000

>drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human

>testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is

>approved.

dikdik8y ago

No, doctors do not have "too much information to consume" especially in relation to new drugs on the market.

In the highly specialized field of medicine, you do not need to know about every drug that comes out every year. You only need to know about the handful of drugs that are important to your specialty. Further physicians should be reading medical literature regarding the efficacy of these new drugs and should not be getting their education from a pharmacy rep with a bachelors in communication.

This idea that we wouldn't have any new drugs if American's didn't pay exorbitant fees for pharamaceuticals is completely false. It's a rationalization that we Americans have come up with to feel better about being taken to the cleaners by pharma companies.

I had the displeasure of working for a company that was bought out by a multi-national pharma. The crap they pulled disgusted me to the point that I quit without another job lined up. If you think contributing to a company that improves click rates is pointless, try contributing to a company that uses its leverage to eviscerate its customers on their deathbeds. It's infuriarating.

favorited8y ago

For the record, the US is one of the only Western countries where drug companies are allowed to market directly to consumers.

marcosdumay8y ago

Educating doctors is not a job for the pharma companies.

1 more reply

refurb8y ago

That's incorrect and based on an analysis that lumps all sales and general expenses into "marketing".

Also, companies don't market unless it brings in more revenue than it costs (positive ROI). Thus, marketing pays for itself. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

joewrong8y ago

> CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development.

the estimate includes money that investors could have made if they invested elsewhere?

aantixOP8y ago

Opportunity costs are real. Promising hypotheses are abundant and cheap. Exploring each with grueling, resource-intense, high-standard science is expensive.

You have to make hard choices.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jonahhorowitz8y ago

This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

aantixOP8y ago

It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come.

The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company.

Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not).

>In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for

>an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your

>medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it. Only 5 in 5,000

>drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human

>testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is

>approved.

dikdik8y ago

No, doctors do not have "too much information to consume" especially in relation to new drugs on the market.

favorited8y ago

For the record, the US is one of the only Western countries where drug companies are allowed to market directly to consumers.

marcosdumay8y ago

Educating doctors is not a job for the pharma companies.

1 more reply

refurb8y ago

That's incorrect and based on an analysis that lumps all sales and general expenses into "marketing".

Also, companies don't market unless it brings in more revenue than it costs (positive ROI). Thus, marketing pays for itself. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

joewrong8y ago

the estimate includes money that investors could have made if they invested elsewhere?

aantixOP8y ago

Opportunity costs are real. Promising hypotheses are abundant and cheap. Exploring each with grueling, resource-intense, high-standard science is expensive.

You have to make hard choices.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse