|
Post by raphael on Jun 11, 2009 10:40:56 GMT -5
Okay we know these companies have expenses such as R & D. But if this list is accurate (not to say you couldn't find cheaper prices online and in Canada and such) is this not a raping of the sick and downtrodden? Celebrex 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percen t markup: 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88 Percent markup: 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696%
Norvasec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01 Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97 Cost of general active ingredients $0.52 Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13 Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $10237 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20 Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89 Cost of general active ingredients $3.20 Percent markup: 2,809%
Zithromax 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892%
Zocor 40 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63 Percent markup: 4,059%
Zoloft 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11 ,821% www.health-report.co.uk/obscene_drug_mark_ups.htm
|
|
|
Post by 502blue on Jun 11, 2009 11:09:42 GMT -5
Raph,. while I will agree, I am not to keen on the cost of scrips, the pharmaceutical companies pay a fortune to even conduct experiments to get a drug going. It is a slow, do over many a time process, to create a medicine. The lab chemists are paid a 3 figure salary, and most have had their masters degrees paid by the pharmacy companies. While the actual ingredients aren't expensive, the years of labor to create that drug is. I also know, they have proprietary rights to that drug and its ingredients for several years before anyone is allowed to make a generic. They recover costs and then some mucho dinero from that right. I don't know where the answer would be on creating "cheaper" drugs. I surely wouldn't want some high school grad chemist working on it.
|
|
|
Post by Diremaker on Jun 11, 2009 11:13:13 GMT -5
I notice those are all 100 tablet prescriptions. My wife takes a migraine medicine called Frova. Cost for TEN tablets without insurance? $267.00.
For 100, that would be $2670.00
|
|
|
Post by bret on Jun 11, 2009 11:44:32 GMT -5
It used to be that the focus was on curing the disease.
Now the focus is on treating the disease since there is so much more profit in the treatment than the cure. "Just take this pill, you'll feel better."
Probably why you haven't heard too many of these pharmaceutical companies begging for bailout money.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jun 11, 2009 11:53:29 GMT -5
Raph,. while I will agree, I am not to keen on the cost of scrips, the pharmaceutical companies pay a fortune to even conduct experiments to get a drug going. It is a slow, do over many a time process, to create a medicine. The lab chemists are paid a 3 figure salary, and most have had their masters degrees paid by the pharmacy companies. While the actual ingredients aren't expensive, the years of labor to create that drug is. I also know, they have proprietary rights to that drug and its ingredients for several years before anyone is allowed to make a generic. They recover costs and then some mucho dinero from that right. I don't know where the answer would be on creating "cheaper" drugs. I surely wouldn't want some high school grad chemist working on it. while i don't enjoy paying high prices for drugs, i think many people are unaware of some of the reasons prices are so high. first of all, ingredient prices are a relatively low percentage in many consumer products. that starbucks caramel macchiato you bought for $3... the ingredients probably cost less than a quarter. the ingredients in a big mac probably total less than 50 cents. however, there are several other costs that must be factored into the equation. there's R&D, overhead, logistics, advertising, FDA testing, patent and legal costs as well. then there are patent issues. the pharmaceutical companies recoup their expenses and turn a profit while a drug is covered by a patent b/c no other company can make a generic and undercut their price. however, the current patent period doesn't always give the inventor of the drug enough time to turn a decent profit, so they have to jack up the price. remember, whether we like it or not, these companies have to be profitable to stay in business. if they can't make money, we can kiss any future innovative drugs goodbye. if the pharmaceutical companies were allowed to hold patents for a longer period of time, their prices would surely fall.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Jun 11, 2009 12:23:54 GMT -5
This article if true, states that R & D in the industry was $65 billion or a little over 3%. You mean to tell me $250 billion went for all this other stuff you mention? The United States has the largest pharmaceutical industry in the world. In 2007, its pharmaceutical revenue totaled at US$ 315 billion. Since the year of 2000, the pharmaceutical R & D expenditure has been maintaining an increase, even in 2008, impacted by the global financial crisis, the pharmaceutical R & D expenditure totaled at US $65.2 billion, up 3.16% of last year. www.pr-inside.com/us-pharmaceutical-industry-report-r1291427.htm
|
|
|
Post by bret on Jun 11, 2009 13:46:50 GMT -5
The article said that the R&D budget went UP 3% to $65 Billion. That's about 20% of the $315 total. Most of the other 80% is gravy.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Jun 11, 2009 14:01:31 GMT -5
The article said that the R&D budget went UP 3% to $65 Billion. That's about 20% of the $315 total. Most of the other 80% is gravy. Yeah your right. Boy is my 5th grade math bad. ;D If people weren't getting gouged so much here in America then why can they get the same ones much cheaper in say Canada?
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jun 11, 2009 14:17:20 GMT -5
The article said that the R&D budget went UP 3% to $65 Billion. That's about 20% of the $315 total. Most of the other 80% is gravy. i'd say you're understating the marketing and advertising costs immensely. they might even overshadow the R&D costs.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jun 11, 2009 14:32:29 GMT -5
The article said that the R&D budget went UP 3% to $65 Billion. That's about 20% of the $315 total. Most of the other 80% is gravy. Yeah your right. Boy is my 5th grade math bad. ;D If people weren't getting gouged so much here in America then why can they get the same ones much cheaper in say Canada? i've read reports that say that, while brand name drug prices are higher in the US than in canada, generic drugs are generally lower in the US than in canada. why? b/c the canadian government sets the price percentages for generics.
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Jun 13, 2009 6:39:15 GMT -5
I thank God every day that I don't have to take prescription meds on a regular basis. 502 and bret are both right. R&D is expensive business and doctor's are over prescribing. The number of folks on pills is staggering. We're a nation of pill heads.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jun 13, 2009 8:51:58 GMT -5
The article said that the R&D budget went UP 3% to $65 Billion. That's about 20% of the $315 total. Most of the other 80% is gravy. You forget tiny items like manufacturing and labor costs, marketing and liability. Drug companies generally make good profits, but their investment and exposure is enormous. Every time they get in front of a jury, the awards go through the stratosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Diremaker on Jun 13, 2009 10:21:33 GMT -5
The jury rewards go through the stratosphere because it is so easy for a good lawyer to make the drug companies look like evil gazillionaires... which they basically are... right up until the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jun 13, 2009 12:14:53 GMT -5
The jury rewards go through the stratosphere because it is so easy for a good lawyer to make the drug companies look like evil gazillionaires... which they basically are... right up until the lawsuit. True enough, but I find it hard to justify awarding a guy who makes 20k and is 60 years old $50m because some drug caused his prostate to swell. Reasonable economic compensation and reasonable limits on non economic damages would go a long way toward lowering drug prices. Obviously, whoever compiled this information has an axe to grind with the drug companies. Nobody would assume that my profit is the difference between the cost of materials and the asking price of a house, so why would we assume that to be true of other industries? Besides, the truly obscene drug profits all go here:
|
|
|
Post by Diremaker on Jun 13, 2009 12:35:36 GMT -5
Good point. I also agree with the fair compensation thing as well. unfortunately, you and I would then be accused of "trying to place a value on a human life".
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jun 13, 2009 12:42:16 GMT -5
Good point. I also agree with the fair compensation thing as well. unfortunately, you and I would then be accused of "trying to place a value on a human life". From a compensatory standpoint, it's not that difficult to put a dollar value on a human life. Bob was X years of age and made X per year. Actuarial tables will give us Bob's life expectancy and projected lifetime earnings. Bob's family will incur X in added expenses due to his absence. = The economic value of Bob from now until his likely demise. Add to that a reasonable number for the pain and suffering inflicted upon Bob's family and you have yourself a settlement that doesn't have to go through the roof but still compensates a person who has been wronged. In some cases punitive damages may be awarded, but that's pretty unusual and should be limited as well. If there were any real and intentional wrongdoing that's more of a case for criminal or regulatory bodies to pursue.
|
|