Just a snippet from wiki that makes me go >_<

[nonameo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claritin

Loratadine was eventually approved by the FDA, and in 2001, its last year on patent, it accounted for 28% of Schering's total sales. Although an FDA advisory panel ruled that Loratadine was safe enough to be sold over the counter, Schering opposed such a decision on the grounds that it would reduce the price that could be charged for the drug.[4] The drug continued to be available only by prescription in the U.S. until it went off patent in 2002. It was then immediately approved for over-the-counter sales. Once it became an unpatented over-the-counter drug, the price dropped precipitously, and insurance companies no longer paid for it. In response, Schering launched an expensive advertising campaign to convince users to switch to Clarinex (Desloratadine), which is a metabolized form of Loratadine. A 2003 study comparing the two drugs found that "There is no clinical advantage to switching a patient from loratadine to desloratadine. However, it may be an option for patients whose medical insurance no longer covers loratadine if the co-pay is less than the cost of the over-the-counter product."[5]

Really, it just makes me go >_<

it really is all about the profits. OTC offbrand claritin is dirt cheap, so really I see no reason to go for that "new" drug they're touting.

You just can't trust drug companies.

 

[bamacre]

I don't trust the FDA either, at least not more than I have to.

 

[imported_inspire]

It sounds more as if the health insurance industry is the catalyst here.

 

[Dragula22]

Big pharma are public companies working to maximize profit for shareholders. Why would you expect otherwise?

Virtually all drugs being sought after now are the ones that cater towards a wide demographic--ie biggest profits. This is probably a problem.

If you want a truly altruistic drug researching institution, perhaps the gov't should start one.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Profits have trumped actual health care for a long time.

 

[StageLeft]

Profits are the reason we have chemotherapy, tylenol, anesthetics, etc.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Profits are the reason we have chemotherapy, tylenol, anesthetics, etc.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with making profit in medicines, but there is potential of immorality and/or illegality in the manner in which profits are made. Big pharma in bed with the FDC in particular.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: inspire
It sounds more as if the health insurance industry is the catalyst here.

Exactly!!

The OP has stumbled onto one of the biggest problems with our third party payer medical system.

It is a system where people aren't encouraged to find the overall cheapest solution to their medical needs, but to find the solution that is cheapest to them personally.

A box of 30 Loratadine's, Walmart brand, might cost you $10.

But a co-pay on Clarinex only costs you $5. So you pick the Clarinex and ignore the fact that the insurance company is paying $15 a month for that box as well.

Imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted in our medical system each year due to things like this.

The solution to this problem is NOT government run healthcare though, that would just create more problems ala "I hurt my ankle, I guess I'll go to the emergency room since it's free."

Instead, the solution is a variation of the medical savings plans. You and your company both put $10 a week into your health savings account. When the time comes that you need to buy some drugs it is in your best interest to spend as little as possible because that money is coming out of YOUR savings account. If you exceed the amount of money in your account then you have to make up the difference.

This encourages people to shop around for the best price instead of just looking for the lowest out of pocket expense. John Stosel had a real good segment on this during his healthcare special companies that are using this system are saving a ton of money and their employees healthcare is not suffering at all either.

BTW the system has a maximum out of pocket expense to keep people who run into serious medical problems from going broke.

 

[Mxylplyx]

It's my belief that the government should fund pots of money to buy patents for drugs that are not normally profitable for drug companies to pursue. People demonize drug companies when they spend billions of their own R&D money to develop a drug that does not have a huge demand, and then have to charge alot for the drug to recoup their investment. People expect these companies to do the moral thing and give it away for free or something, lost investment be damned. Instead, the government, or a coalition of governments, should be willing to buy the patents off the drug companies for what they are worth, and then they can make as many as they want. This would leverage the efficiency of the private system to address public health problems that might not be profitable to address.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
It's my belief that the government should fund pots of money to buy patents for drugs that are not normally profitable for drug companies to pursue. People demonize drug companies when they spend billions of their own R&D money to develop a drug that does not have a huge demand, and then have to charge alot for the drug to recoup their investment. People expect these companies to do the moral thing and give it away for free or something, lost investment be damned. Instead, the government, or a coalition of governments, should be willing to buy the patents off the drug companies for what they are worth, and then they can make as many as they want. This would leverage the efficiency of the private system to address public health problems that might not be profitable to address.

problem then will be for the corrupt inept government to do anything but F it up. Soon as the government is the reseller you go back to buying $800 toilet seats and screwdrivers.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
Big pharma are public companies working to maximize profit for shareholders. Why would you expect otherwise?

Virtually all drugs being sought after now are the ones that cater towards a wide demographic--ie biggest profits. This is probably a problem.

If you want a truly altruistic drug researching institution, perhaps the gov't should start one.

Have you seen what happens when the government gets its hands on something?

The drive for profit also drives innovation. R&D is extremely important.

 

[sandorski]

There are hundreds maybe even thousands of "New" Drugs that are actually Old Drugs with slight alteration. This is done to keep Patents current, Prices high, and Profits high. No Medical advantage is attained in this process. I suspect a high percentage of R&D is focussed on this type of thing.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dragula22
Big pharma are public companies working to maximize profit for shareholders. Why would you expect otherwise?

Virtually all drugs being sought after now are the ones that cater towards a wide demographic--ie biggest profits. This is probably a problem.

If you want a truly altruistic drug researching institution, perhaps the gov't should start one.

Have you seen what happens when the government gets its hands on something?

The drive for profit also drives innovation. R&D is extremely important.

It is but to bad Pharm compnaies spend more on ads, paying off doctors, trips, etc... then R&D. Let alone over paying their top people as well. I use to work in Pharm so I have seen it first hand.

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: inspire
It sounds more as if the health insurance industry is the catalyst here.

Exactly!!

The OP has stumbled onto one of the biggest problems with our third party payer medical system.

It is a system where people aren't encouraged to find the overall cheapest solution to their medical needs, but to find the solution that is cheapest to them personally.

A box of 30 Loratadine's, Walmart brand, might cost you $10.

But a co-pay on Clarinex only costs you $5. So you pick the Clarinex and ignore the fact that the insurance company is paying $15 a month for that box as well.

Imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted in our medical system each year due to things like this.

The solution to this problem is NOT government run healthcare though, that would just create more problems ala "I hurt my ankle, I guess I'll go to the emergency room since it's free."

Instead, the solution is a variation of the medical savings plans. You and your company both put $10 a week into your health savings account. When the time comes that you need to buy some drugs it is in your best interest to spend as little as possible because that money is coming out of YOUR savings account. If you exceed the amount of money in your account then you have to make up the difference.

This encourages people to shop around for the best price instead of just looking for the lowest out of pocket expense. John Stosel had a real good segment on this during his healthcare special companies that are using this system are saving a ton of money and their employees healthcare is not suffering at all either.

BTW the system has a maximum out of pocket expense to keep people who run into serious medical problems from going broke.

I hate to get started on health insurance and pharmacies. But here goes..
I have script and the BC/BS copay is $10 dollars and a limit to a 30 day supply.
The same med is a generic that is available for $4 for 30 days or $10 dollars for 90 days.

No (Kroger,Target, or Wal-Green) pharmacy will let me get the med without using the ins. Once they have your ins. info they refuse to not use it. They charge me $10 and the ins. $17.56 for a 30 day supply.

So I have to use 2 different pharmacies to get meds. 1 gets the ins. info and I get any 30 day non-generic and the high priced generics I need from them. The other I tell them I have no ins. and get the low cost generic 90 day's from them.

And I don't like doing that because it screws the one I use for generics only out of most of the money.

But I gave them a chance to do it my way and they refused. When I changed ins. I just told them I no longer had ins.

Greed cost 'em

..

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There are hundreds maybe even thousands of "New" Drugs that are actually Old Drugs with slight alteration. This is done to keep Patents current, Prices high, and Profits high. No Medical advantage is attained in this process. I suspect a high percentage of R&D is focussed on this type of thing.

Another thing I think being done is combining 2 (or more?) generic's that are commonly taken together and applying for a new patent for the combined drug.


...

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There are hundreds maybe even thousands of "New" Drugs that are actually Old Drugs with slight alteration. This is done to keep Patents current, Prices high, and Profits high. No Medical advantage is attained in this process. I suspect a high percentage of R&D is focussed on this type of thing.

Well, that may or may not be true.

For example, most of the antibiotics are substituted backbones. Penicillin sucks, but substitute a couple of groups and all of a sudden you have a drug that has the same (or better) efficiency, at least until the bugs adapt to it. Very, very, very few antibiotics are actually novel chemicals. They are derivatives of normally occurring antibiotics in the soil.

However, other examples, such as bundling two drugs together and calling it brand new is pure profiteering. There's no easy answer to this crap either. Drug companies need a lot of money to get drugs into the system; it takes something like 10 years and 1+ billion dollars to get a single drug approved by the FDA. On the other hand, the public is ill-served by a monopoly on a drug.

 

[Vic]

Why is it always a shocker for either side of the political aisle to discover that The State is in bed with The Company?

They both share the same goal. Increased profits = increased tax revenues.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Really, it just makes me go >_<

it really is all about the profits. OTC offbrand claritin is dirt cheap, so really I see no reason to go for that "new" drug they're touting.

You just can't trust drug companies.

And look where Schering is now....just got sucked up by Merck.

These companies have nothing in their pipeline and are doing whatever they can to remain solvent.

Whatever, when we get to the point of having two major drug companies and everyone else making generics, with nothing new being done, major layoffs, and more jobs shipped over to india then we might learn, but probabily not.