Obama's health policy may give a booster dose to Indian generics

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone better tell the pharmaceutical industry that they're cutting back on research. They seem to think they are increasing research year on year by about 6%, reaching a record of nearly $60 billion last year. But what do they know?

You're right though, people in the US should pay more for drugs for no particularly good reason other than to fund private corporations R+D budget. If their business plan is entirely dependent upon soaking US consumers due to massive incompetence and inaction on the American citizens' government's part, their business plan was really fucking stupid.

Eskimo, you're an idiot....

They have nothing in their pipelines, they have to spend on R&D now while they still have some capital left in the hopes that something comes out of it...but so far it has turned up very little.

If these companies get to the point where they have nothing on the horizon, and then compound that with their profits getting stifled due to restrictions on importation being lessened, then it is only a matter of time before they cut back even more than they have already and we see less innovation.

But whatever, I hope you guys get everything you want...it will be interesting to see everything fall apart all at once.

Oh am I? You're the one claiming they are 'hemorrhaging money' when they are posting profits in the tens of billions per year. Furthermore, they have been increasing their R+D spending at a rate that outstrips their growth in revenue and inflation by a significant amount.

Why don't you educate yourself and read this CBO brief on the state of the US Pharma industry before you start just making shit up about decreasing R+D, and whining about how we're going to stop our corporate welfare to the drug companies in the form of artificially inflated drug prices.

Thank me later!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Most of the money doesn't go to lawyers, but a significant portion does because the lawyer is the one taking all the risk. If they don't win, the lawyer could go bankrupt.

I'll never understand the antipathy towards large lawsuits. You think Pfizer cares if someone wins a $10,000 settlement against them? The entire purpose of the laws in place is to keep corporations from doing things that hurt people. $10k wouldn't even make them blink. So, if you want the laws we make to actually affect the companies we make them for, large lawsuits are the way to go.

Maybe if the FDA could actually do its damn job there wouldn't be so many lawsuits. People think "oh it is FDA-approved, it must be safe," then they find out later that it isn't, and its too late.

I think the FDA does its job pretty well. They obviously have to balance between the amount of testing required to keep the public safe, and the public interest of approving drugs in a timely manner so they can help people. If drug companies want to manipulate and hide findings, they will sometimes get away with it. The measure of scrutiny necessary to prevent that would be too onerous in my opinion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe if the FDA could actually do its damn job there wouldn't be so many lawsuits. People think "oh it is FDA-approved, it must be safe," then they find out later that it isn't, and its too late.

There are always levels of risk when approving any treatment or medication. The job of the FDA isn't to ascertain beyond any doubt that the treatment/drug is perfectly safe, because none of them are. Their job is to make sure that the potential benefits are more common/beneficial than the side effects. All of these things are done on a probabilistic basis because anyone could have an allergic reaction to an otherwise perfectly safe drug and die. If that only happens in 0.0000001% of cases and the drug cures the rest of the people of AIDS, should it be approved? Of course it should. This is a relatively black and white case, but the same principles of risk assessment is a cornerstone of any such process. Nothing is ever completely safe, but is it worth the risks?

 

[Dragula22]

You guys keep bringing up the fact that R&D investment is increasing.

So..you think pharms like Merck is cutting 10,000 jobs for the fun of it? The reason they're cutting jobs is very simple. It is not the Vioxx lawsuit (a settlement was reached costing several billions) nor is it the bad state of the economy.

The reason they are cutting jobs is BECAUSE nothing is coming out of the pipeline in the foreseeable future, while at the same time losing billions in revenue due to patents expiring and generics coming out.

Poor business model? What kind of business model do you expect when your product has only several years on the market before its patent expires? Big Pharm companies need to continuously bring NEW drugs to market to survive.

Companies like Merck used to R&D for over 20-30 diseases at once. Now they are leaning out and only focusing on 6-7 highly profitable markets like cardio/diabetes/etc. This can't be good long term...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
You guys keep bringing up the fact that R&D investment is increasing.

So..you think pharms like Merck is cutting 10,000 jobs for the fun of it? The reason they're cutting jobs is very simple. It is not the Vioxx lawsuit (a settlement was reached costing several billions) nor is it the bad state of the economy.

The reason they are cutting jobs is BECAUSE nothing is coming out of the pipeline in the foreseeable future, while at the same time losing billions in revenue due to patents expiring and generics coming out.

Poor business model? What kind of business model do you expect when your product has only several years on the market before its patent expires? Big Pharm companies need to continuously bring NEW drugs to market to survive.

Companies like Merck used to R&D for over 20-30 diseases at once. Now they are leaning out and only focusing on 6-7 highly profitable markets like cardio/diabetes/etc. This can't be good long term...

You mean the gravy train of milking Americans is over? Puuushaaa

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean the gravy train of milking Americans is over? Puuushaaa

Dave, what you and others fail to realize is that "we" will pay for it in the end one way or another.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: abj13
Please stop making BS up. Direct to consumer advertising for the pharmaceutical industry started in 1997 BECAUSE of the FDA changed the rules governing TV advertising. It did not start because of increased health care regulations, the regulations are a direct result of the non-stop diarrhea of ads now seen on TV.

Astrazeneca's R&D has increased to 5.2 billion in 2007 from 3.38 billion in 2005.
Merck's R&D also has increased to 4.8 billion in 2007 from 3.8 billion in 2005

Yeah, they are cutting back on R&D :roll:
For someone who chastises others for not knowing a market, how hard is it to actually read a pharm's annual and earnings releases instead of posting BS?

making bs up, this is rich. As I said, a part of the reasons why the companies changed their approach with regards to marketing is because they were no longer allowed through regulation to approach doctors in the same way, which many might see as a good thing since it leveled the playing field in terms of what gets scripted (no more steak and lobster dinners, lavish gifts,..etc)

And also again with the R&D budget, the companies that can afford to increase currently have to because there is nothing on the horizon for them...as I said above both AZ and Merck have nothing in their product pipelines and once all of their current patented drugs fall off then they will start losing money.

They are already cutting jobs at a record rate, it will only get more aggressive.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Do you think dumping money into R&D just magically gives you drugs? A lot of times, you hit dead ends. You might get something that could work in vitro but not in vivo. Your drug could work, but gets metabolized or post-digestion modification before it gets to the desired target, rendering it inoperable; you might have created something that is way too toxic for people; you might not have a delivery system for the drug; it could work, but just be extremely cost prohibitive to bring to market, such as protein-based drugs, since chemical protein synthesis takes a lot of materials on the industrial level and a lot of time (from my own experience in the lab, a 50 amino acid protein made using standard solid phase peptide synthesis protocols and native chemical ligation takes about a month to do the whole thing (lots of work ups, time for reactions, etc); you could always grow in cells and isolate, but that's a heavy task of its own).

Drug making is difficult and expensive. The problem comes in when other countries don't want to respect intellectual property rights because a drug is "too expensive". In some cases, they might have a legitimate claim, but in others, they are just stealing. In the US, they are also able to rip consumers off more, probably because they can charge more to the insurance companies and because they dump a ton of money into marketing.

No, I don't however I do think that anything helps at this point...sure alot of smaller companies are able to make good on much tighter budgets, but they might advance on one candidate if that, they just don't have the type of resources that the larger companies have to offer.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh am I? You're the one claiming they are 'hemorrhaging money' when they are posting profits in the tens of billions per year. Furthermore, they have been increasing their R+D spending at a rate that outstrips their growth in revenue and inflation by a significant amount.

Why don't you educate yourself and read this CBO brief on the state of the US Pharma industry before you start just making shit up about decreasing R+D, and whining about how we're going to stop our corporate welfare to the drug companies in the form of artificially inflated drug prices.

Thank me later!

You're talking about in the case of Merck, a company that is approximately 60,000 people world wide, how much would you expect such a company to make?

And again they have nothing in the pipeline, thus if they want to stay viable they have to spend now on R&D and big time...yet even with these record profits and R&D spend they are still slashing jobs at an amazing rate...what does that tell you??

But like I said whatever, I hope you guys get what you want, we get really cheap drugs, all of the big players go down for the count....that would be fantastic!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
You guys keep bringing up the fact that R&D investment is increasing.

So..you think pharms like Merck is cutting 10,000 jobs for the fun of it? The reason they're cutting jobs is very simple. It is not the Vioxx lawsuit (a settlement was reached costing several billions) nor is it the bad state of the economy.

The reason they are cutting jobs is BECAUSE nothing is coming out of the pipeline in the foreseeable future, while at the same time losing billions in revenue due to patents expiring and generics coming out.

Poor business model? What kind of business model do you expect when your product has only several years on the market before its patent expires? Big Pharm companies need to continuously bring NEW drugs to market to survive.

Companies like Merck used to R&D for over 20-30 diseases at once. Now they are leaning out and only focusing on 6-7 highly profitable markets like cardio/diabetes/etc. This can't be good long term...

QFT

Alzheimers and Obesety were two of the they were focusing on a few years back as an FYI

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
One thing no one stopped to consider: the pharm industry creates the most waste per pound of product of any industry. Synthetic, biologically active chemicals being produced in India rather than in the US will take one hell of a toll on the environment.

Also, if he means that imports of generics should be allowed because the drugs are still patented within the US or internationally, that would definitely be illegal. He could work to pass a law to make it legal, but any judge worth a shilling would be able to strike it down in less than a week as clearly unconstitutional.

Umm, no there is nothing in the constitution that requires patents.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Balt
Just as an aside, is there any information out there on how much these huge class action lawsuits costs the major pharmaceutical companies?

I'm not saying people don't deserve some kind of compensation if they suffer or have a loved one die because of unlisted side effects, but since most of the money probably just goes to lawyers anyway...

Most of the money doesn't go to lawyers, but a significant portion does because the lawyer is the one taking all the risk. If they don't win, the lawyer could go bankrupt.

I'll never understand the antipathy towards large lawsuits. You think Pfizer cares if someone wins a $10,000 settlement against them? The entire purpose of the laws in place is to keep corporations from doing things that hurt people. $10k wouldn't even make them blink. So, if you want the laws we make to actually affect the companies we make them for, large lawsuits are the way to go.

Maybe if the FDA could actually do its damn job there wouldn't be so many lawsuits. People think "oh it is FDA-approved, it must be safe," then they find out later that it isn't, and its too late.

The FDA doesn't do it's job because it's been severely underfunded by anti-government Republicans...

 

[cKGunslinger]

Oh noes! Companies being forced to tighten their belts, trim down, become more efficient, and potentially reevaluate their hyper-inflated profits margins, all in an effort to compete in a global economy? Disastrous.

Next thing you know GM and Ford will be complaining about all these fuel-efficient imports..

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
You guys keep bringing up the fact that R&D investment is increasing.

So..you think pharms like Merck is cutting 10,000 jobs for the fun of it? The reason they're cutting jobs is very simple. It is not the Vioxx lawsuit (a settlement was reached costing several billions) nor is it the bad state of the economy.

The reason they are cutting jobs is BECAUSE nothing is coming out of the pipeline in the foreseeable future, while at the same time losing billions in revenue due to patents expiring and generics coming out.

Poor business model? What kind of business model do you expect when your product has only several years on the market before its patent expires? Big Pharm companies need to continuously bring NEW drugs to market to survive.

Companies like Merck used to R&D for over 20-30 diseases at once. Now they are leaning out and only focusing on 6-7 highly profitable markets like cardio/diabetes/etc. This can't be good long term...

Don't patents last 14 years before becoming public domain?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

At this point with the horrific track record Conservatives have, anything they oppose must be a good thing.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
One thing no one stopped to consider: the pharm industry creates the most waste per pound of product of any industry. Synthetic, biologically active chemicals being produced in India rather than in the US will take one hell of a toll on the environment.

Also, if he means that imports of generics should be allowed because the drugs are still patented within the US or internationally, that would definitely be illegal. He could work to pass a law to make it legal, but any judge worth a shilling would be able to strike it down in less than a week as clearly unconstitutional.

Umm, no there is nothing in the constitution that requires patents.

Article I:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Dragula22
You guys keep bringing up the fact that R&D investment is increasing.

So..you think pharms like Merck is cutting 10,000 jobs for the fun of it? The reason they're cutting jobs is very simple. It is not the Vioxx lawsuit (a settlement was reached costing several billions) nor is it the bad state of the economy.

The reason they are cutting jobs is BECAUSE nothing is coming out of the pipeline in the foreseeable future, while at the same time losing billions in revenue due to patents expiring and generics coming out.

Poor business model? What kind of business model do you expect when your product has only several years on the market before its patent expires? Big Pharm companies need to continuously bring NEW drugs to market to survive.

Companies like Merck used to R&D for over 20-30 diseases at once. Now they are leaning out and only focusing on 6-7 highly profitable markets like cardio/diabetes/etc. This can't be good long term...

Don't patents last 14 years before becoming public domain?

From the time of discovery. Half that 14 years is spent getting approval.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
At this point with the horrific track record Conservatives have, anything they oppose must be a good thing.

Guess you weren't around during the Carter years! :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh am I? You're the one claiming they are 'hemorrhaging money' when they are posting profits in the tens of billions per year. Furthermore, they have been increasing their R+D spending at a rate that outstrips their growth in revenue and inflation by a significant amount.

Why don't you educate yourself and read this CBO brief on the state of the US Pharma industry before you start just making shit up about decreasing R+D, and whining about how we're going to stop our corporate welfare to the drug companies in the form of artificially inflated drug prices.

Thank me later!

You're talking about in the case of Merck, a company that is approximately 60,000 people world wide, how much would you expect such a company to make?

And again they have nothing in the pipeline, thus if they want to stay viable they have to spend now on R&D and big time...yet even with these record profits and R&D spend they are still slashing jobs at an amazing rate...what does that tell you??

But like I said whatever, I hope you guys get what you want, we get really cheap drugs, all of the big players go down for the count....that would be fantastic!

Okay, so now you are admitting you lied earlier when you were talking about the drug companies 'hemorrhaging money'. Which is it? Are they losing money, or posting record profits? You are also admitting you lied earlier when you claimed that the 'big players still put money into R+D but not nearly as much as they were in the past'. So which is it? Are the big firms reducing the amount of money they put into research, or are they spending on R+D at record levels?

Artificially inflated drug prices in the US are a form of corporate welfare to the pharma industry. If you believe that corporate welfare is the best way to spur innovation and research that's fine, but lets just all be honest about where we are coming from.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh am I? You're the one claiming they are 'hemorrhaging money' when they are posting profits in the tens of billions per year. Furthermore, they have been increasing their R+D spending at a rate that outstrips their growth in revenue and inflation by a significant amount.

Why don't you educate yourself and read this CBO brief on the state of the US Pharma industry before you start just making shit up about decreasing R+D, and whining about how we're going to stop our corporate welfare to the drug companies in the form of artificially inflated drug prices.

Thank me later!

You're talking about in the case of Merck, a company that is approximately 60,000 people world wide, how much would you expect such a company to make?

And again they have nothing in the pipeline, thus if they want to stay viable they have to spend now on R&D and big time...yet even with these record profits and R&D spend they are still slashing jobs at an amazing rate...what does that tell you??

But like I said whatever, I hope you guys get what you want, we get really cheap drugs, all of the big players go down for the count....that would be fantastic!

Okay, so now you are admitting you lied earlier when you were talking about the drug companies 'hemorrhaging money'. Which is it? Are they losing money, or posting record profits? You are also admitting you lied earlier when you claimed that the 'big players still put money into R+D but not nearly as much as they were in the past'. So which is it? Are the big firms reducing the amount of money they put into research, or are they spending on R+D at record levels?

Artificially inflated drug prices in the US are a form of corporate welfare to the pharma industry. If you believe that corporate welfare is the best way to spur innovation and research that's fine, but lets just all be honest about where we are coming from.

Facts, the bane of right wingers everywhere.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Don't patents last 14 years before becoming public domain?

Yes but for a good part of this time the drug is tied up in clinical trials, I don't remember the figure but thought that once out of trials and fully approved they only had something like seven years or so to recoup their expenses.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Okay, so now you are admitting you lied earlier when you were talking about the drug companies 'hemorrhaging money'. Which is it? Are they losing money, or posting record profits? You are also admitting you lied earlier when you claimed that the 'big players still put money into R+D but not nearly as much as they were in the past'. So which is it? Are the big firms reducing the amount of money they put into research, or are they spending on R+D at record levels?

Artificially inflated drug prices in the US are a form of corporate welfare to the pharma industry. If you believe that corporate welfare is the best way to spur innovation and research that's fine, but lets just all be honest about where we are coming from.

Let me say this a little slower so you can follow....

They are spending more on research, but they are cutting back on support areas of the research side, so IT, Operations, Lab Services...they are also closing down basic research sites and consolodating them in specialized geographic areas, I have heard the plan is to have certain hubs focus on specific drug development instead of having a few remote sites all work on the same thing only smaller scale.

So the big players have to spend on R&D because there is nothing in their pipeline, however they are cutting back bigtime on the areas which support and facilitate the resarch work.

And I would hardly call their prices artifically inflated, there is tons of competition in the market place, Astra, Pfizer, Merck, J&J, Eli, Dupont...so it isn't a monopoly...

I would rather the dems push for socialized/mandated healthcare than by trying to eat into the already waining profits of the drug industry.

 

[DukeN]

Time for a reality check. Waning profits of the drug industry? What's next - you're gonna complain about Exxon only making $8B instead of $10B a quarter?

Last I checked Merck and Pfizer had EBITDA and operating cash flows of over$8-$10B a year. These behemoths don't lose money from operations, and have ridiculous amounts of cash on hand. Built by plundering the working class directly and indirectly with outrageous prices.

The prices for drugs are stupidly inflated, as there are no checks and balances to ensure that people don't get wiped out because they needed a treatment or two. And if there is competition, it rarely occurs within two drugs that cater to one individual.

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Okay, so now you are admitting you lied earlier when you were talking about the drug companies 'hemorrhaging money'. Which is it? Are they losing money, or posting record profits? You are also admitting you lied earlier when you claimed that the 'big players still put money into R+D but not nearly as much as they were in the past'. So which is it? Are the big firms reducing the amount of money they put into research, or are they spending on R+D at record levels?

Artificially inflated drug prices in the US are a form of corporate welfare to the pharma industry. If you believe that corporate welfare is the best way to spur innovation and research that's fine, but lets just all be honest about where we are coming from.

Let me say this a little slower so you can follow....

They are spending more on research, but they are cutting back on support areas of the research side, so IT, Operations, Lab Services...they are also closing down basic research sites and consolodating them in specialized geographic areas, I have heard the plan is to have certain hubs focus on specific drug development instead of having a few remote sites all work on the same thing only smaller scale.

So the big players have to spend on R&D because there is nothing in their pipeline, however they are cutting back bigtime on the areas which support and facilitate the resarch work.

And I would hardly call their prices artifically inflated, there is tons of competition in the market place, Astra, Pfizer, Merck, J&J, Eli, Dupont...so it isn't a monopoly...

I would rather the dems push for socialized/mandated healthcare than by trying to eat into the already waining profits of the drug industry.

 

[theeedude]

I don't care about Indian generics or not, but it would give a boost to US healthcare consumer and businesses reeling under enormous health care costs. Big pharma will just have to focus on creating real value instead of creating 3 types of boner pills, if it wants to make money.

 

[Dari]

"Conservatives" were against protectionism before they were for it. Another stupid thread by winnar.