Absolutely. It's crony capitalism at its worst. The drug companies are perfectly happy to have exorbitant FDA costs because that is a huge barrier to competition. That's how they get away with their profit margins.

I don't know how you'd get profit out of the trial usages. That doesn't really bother me. I'm not much of a believer that taking out profits ultimately helps anything.

As for the difference between here and overseas drug prices. It's partly because the governments over there know the lay of the land too. As long as they let pharma cover their marginal costs, they know they'll get the drug because the US profits cover the risk and R&D costs. We could issue US patents with a provision that the product cannot be exported to any country that refuses to pay its fair share of R&D. And we could provide that if you sell if overseas for less than you sell it here, that patent expires. I would make exceptions for developing countries, but there is no reason why anywhere in western Europe cannot pay its share of R&D costs. Europe will counter by complaining about the time and cost of the FDA process, and maybe, just maybe, we might have to make some changes there. That would not be too bad.

(06-04-2017 06:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 05:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 05:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's not the chemistry research itself that's the issue. Universities can easily handle that exclusively (and would love it -- the U of MN's biggest patent is on a drug).
The huge cost is getting a drug through safety approvals. Making sure that the s___ you crammed in some pill doesn't kill people.

I think it's more a case of making sure that every bureaucrat who draws a paycheck has a chance to sign off on it before it gets approved. It is a process that could definitely stand some streamlining. Another thing that I would strongly favor is an informed, at-risk decision to take a medication before it has cleared all the regulatory hurdles. You sign a waiver that says you can't sue later if some bad side effects are found (or even if it ultimately proves not as effective as proposed). If I were on my deathbed, I'd sign such a waiver in a heartbeat. And I'd gladly live with the consequences, good and/or bad.

The problem with that is that you'd have snake oil salesmen selling any number of obviously bad remedies. And remember, in a world where a pharma CEO makes 250 million a year but you can only sue them for 250,000 in punitive damages...there's a huge incentive for the pharma companies to peddle snake oil, barring government regulations. The Europeans have strict controls on drugs AND low prices too. So can we.

You are not looking for a real solution if you keep bitching about how much someone makes.

The problem IS those high salaries. Its what's driving up the costs. They can't earn those high salaries off European (or Japanese) consumers, so they have to charge American ones for the whole cost of it.

Europe doesn't pay those salaries. They don't have armies of dumb people who look good (aka pharma reps) running around pushing pills and billion dollar marketing campaigns per drug. The consumer gets nothing from those salaries, the glad handing, or the advertising....except a big fat unaffordable bill.

And remember, you can't apply classic Economic theory to markets that don't have price elasticity of demand.

Those salaries are totally insignificant in their costs. Look at their insurance and legal costs. And look at the extra research required because of the legal costs.

(06-04-2017 06:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Absolutely. It's crony capitalism at its worst. The drug companies are perfectly happy to have exorbitant FDA costs because that is a huge barrier to competition. That's how they get away with their profit margins.

I agree ... though I'm not sure the costs are actually unreasonably high, given how tough the process is. It's just high ... because it's a very tough, arduous approvals process.

(06-04-2017 06:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know how you'd get profit out of the trial usages. That doesn't really bother me. I'm not much of a believer that taking out profits ultimately helps anything.

The idea is just to prevent obviously fake drugs from being offered to death-bed patients with false hopes, at extreme prices.

(06-04-2017 06:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the difference between here and overseas drug prices. It's partly because the governments over there know the lay of the land too. As long as they let pharma cover their marginal costs, they know they'll get the drug because the US profits cover the risk and R&D costs. We could issue US patents with a provision that the product cannot be exported to any country that refuses to pay its fair share of R&D. And we could provide that if you sell if overseas for less than you sell it here, that patent expires. I would make exceptions for developing countries, but there is no reason why anywhere in western Europe cannot pay its share of R&D costs. Europe will counter by complaining about the time and cost of the FDA process, and maybe, just maybe, we might have to make some changes there. That would not be too bad.

I like safety approvals being a long, tough process. I don't trust drug companies to have peoples' best interests take priority over massive profits, plain and simple.

I'm jealous of the government price controls employed in other parts of the world for pills and medical devices. There was just an article on Sunday about India's price controls for stents.