It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:19 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 2848
Location: Upstate NY
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Don't get me started on this topic. The drug comp's have taken lobbying to a completely different level over the past 25 yrs. And the tactic of taking doc's to lunch or whatever to assign a specific drug to patients is abhorrent.

But I have to say that calling out a SPECIFIC poster by their profession isn't cool. There is a line here with our professional lives that shouldn't be crossed. I didn't know where Jeemie worked and it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things...



This.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 4772
Kodiak wrote:
R S wrote:
Try comparing the pharmaceutical issues in the US with other western countries


You do realize it's all pretty much the same Big Pharma? There's no "Big Pharma" for the US and "Little Pharma" for Canada and everyone else.


Where did I say the pharma companies were different? the amount of ISSUES are different.

Are you trying to say the laws governing what these companies can do is the same in all western countries? Go to Germany or France and find some TV commercials for pharmaceuticals. Or maybe compare the stats on prescription usage and abuse.

Maybe what you're trying to say is the non-stop commercials, marketing, and pharm reps turning Docs into pusha-men have no affect on the outlandish stats of drug use in the US.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 8490
R S wrote:
Maybe what you're trying to say is the non-stop commercials, marketing, and pharm reps turning Docs into pusha-men have no affect on the outlandish stats of drug use in the US.


Well, Canada has Pharma reps, too, so I'm guessing it has more to do with what single payer will and won't cover.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 4891
I read somewhere (albeit a while a go) that big pharma spends more money on advertising than R&D. I don't know any other industry that advertises to the public that can't actually order the product. It's a system fundamentally built to manipulate in order to increase profits.

Also, the practice of altering a drug in the most minimal way to get a patent renewal, effectively keeping other companies from producing the same drug cheaply, is just slimy. Its the same business model as Monsanto. Both use "for the benefit of humanity" as the excuse. Completely legal and desirable from a capitalist standpoint, but slimy nevertheless. Especially when some drugs cost upwards of $100 per dose. AND in light of the fact that most of the money goes to profits. . . and more advertising.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 8490
COR-TEN wrote:
I read somewhere (albeit a while a go) that big pharma spends more money on advertising than R&D.


I don't know about the specific splits, but most of their advertising is drug reps whom, as I said, in many cases are actually educating physicians. So it's a bit disingenuous to call that advertising/promotion. This is fairly unique to Pharma

In 2012/2013, they spent $3B on marketing to consumers (vs. $24B to physicians, which is mostly travel and rep salaries...and probably huge write-offs for samples). $3B doesn't seem like a very big number to me on $330B in sales. And some of that $3B certainly is beneficial - in fact I'd argue in many cases the direct marketing is dealing with issues people are not entirely aware of, don't know there's medication that can help, or are afraid to talk to a doctor.

Is Big Pharma to be blamed for an alleged "over-medicated" society? They don't write the scripts and there's no incentive for doctors writing scripts. Presumably a doctor is prescribing a drug because a patient has a problem he thinks it will help.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 4891
This isn't the article that I read, but it does confirm the one I did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -research/

Actually, I would say it's disingenuous to call advertising/ promotion, "education." $24B worth of education? Seriously? I call bullshit. Especially when most of that "education" is for known illnesses. Wouldn't that $24B be better used in developing treatments for maladies that have none or alternatives to current drugs? The entire premise that BigPharma spends more on "education(advertising)" than R&D should raise red flags. Besides, what is the profit margin for those $100 pills?

I also don't agree that marketing to a public that can't prescribe their own drugs is making people more aware. In fact, it creates needs where there are none. Just look at the female viagra. Using the excuse that people are afraid to ask or don't know that something can help is a convoluted way of solving the problem of healthcare in general. The idea that a magic pill will help you is born of advertising. Eat fatty, salty foods three times a day and sit on a couch? No problem. Take the magic pill.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 8490
COR-TEN wrote:
Wouldn't that $24B be better used in developing treatments for maladies that have none or alternatives to current drugs? The entire premise that BigPharma spends more on "education(advertising)" than R&D should raise red flags. Besides, what is the profit margin for those $100 pills?

I also don't agree that marketing to a public that can't prescribe their own drugs is making people more aware. In fact, it creates needs where there are none. Just look at the female viagra. Using the excuse that people are afraid to ask or don't know that something can help is a convoluted way of solving the problem of healthcare in general. The idea that a magic pill will help you is born of advertising. Eat fatty, salty foods three times a day and sit on a couch? No problem. Take the magic pill.


Healthcare ranks 2nd in R&D as a % of revenues (behind computing/electronics). You can take issue with the advertising expense, but it's a fact that a big part of that IS education. Then you get into questions about the most efficient way to educate doctors - there is a real expense there to be bourne somewhere in the chain. Otherwise it appears you're confusing unregulated supplements with drugs prescribed by a doctor - because no one is paying or forcing a doctor to prescribe a "magic pill" that won't work to treat an imaginary problem.

Propecia and Viagara are just two items where I think direct advertising is worthwhile. I guess we'll just disagree that a lot of advertising you see on tv is stuff people are too embarassed to talk to their doctor about or are unaware that it's a treatable problem. You don't see a lot of tv ads for Ritalin or Xanax or Percocet - a lot of the "problem" drugs abused aren't advertised much, if at all. And, again, presumably doctors are prescribing those drugs because they DO help a lot of people.


Let's also offer some perspective: advertising revenue was 19% of GDP in 2014. Pharma, including the reps, is less than half that as a % of their sales. The direct consumer advertising - the relevant comparison - of $3B is less than ONE percent of Pharma sales.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 3398
COR-TEN wrote:
I read somewhere (albeit a while a go) that big pharma spends more money on advertising than R&D. I don't know any other industry that advertises to the public that can't actually order the product. It's a system fundamentally built to manipulate in order to increase profits.

.


I find it coincidental that as soon as the drug advertising ban was lifted by the FCC there was a dramatic spike in drug costs. I have to find the article where they showed the correlating graphs. Just a bit ridiculous. What would it hurt if we went back to no more drug ads?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 2848
Location: Upstate NY
Donnie Brasco wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
I read somewhere (albeit a while a go) that big pharma spends more money on advertising than R&D. I don't know any other industry that advertises to the public that can't actually order the product. It's a system fundamentally built to manipulate in order to increase profits.

.


I find it coincidental that as soon as the drug advertising ban was lifted by the FCC there was a dramatic spike in drug costs. I have to find the article where they showed the correlating graphs. Just a bit ridiculous. What would it hurt if we went back to no more drug ads?



Pharma lined pockets?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The BIG Pharma crime
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 4772
COR-TEN wrote:
This isn't the article that I read, but it does confirm the one I did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -research/

Actually, I would say it's disingenuous to call advertising/ promotion, "education." $24B worth of education? Seriously? I call bullshit. Especially when most of that "education" is for known illnesses. Wouldn't that $24B be better used in developing treatments for maladies that have none or alternatives to current drugs? The entire premise that BigPharma spends more on "education(advertising)" than R&D should raise red flags. Besides, what is the profit margin for those $100 pills?

I also don't agree that marketing to a public that can't prescribe their own drugs is making people more aware. In fact, it creates needs where there are none. Just look at the female viagra. Using the excuse that people are afraid to ask or don't know that something can help is a convoluted way of solving the problem of healthcare in general. The idea that a magic pill will help you is born of advertising. Eat fatty, salty foods three times a day and sit on a couch? No problem. Take the magic pill.



Image

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group