RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KYsissy -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 5:12:23 AM)
Tazzy, you are only looking at FDA fees. Those are a drop in the bucket. This article says average cost is $350 million to bring one drug to market. And since most drugs fail, $ 5 billion will be spent on various attempts before one makes it to market. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/

DomKen -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 5:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri R&D for drugs is expensive. It's also expensive to get the drug through the FDA after R&D has come up with a viable drug. My point isn't that we should all buy name-brand medications, but, we do have to have name-brand medications bought to fund that R&D. This is a talking point the pharma companies repeat every chance they get, but the figures belie it. Then please provide some figures for that pablum. because the average cost to get a drug approved in the united states tops $700 million dollars. I doubt they spend $700,000 dollars getting it approved in most countries. Most countries rely on the FDA approval process. So that $ 700 million (which is R&D cost not simply the approval process) is spread out over most of the countries the drug will be sold in.

tazzygirl -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 5:44:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy Tazzy, you are only looking at FDA fees. Those are a drop in the bucket. This article says average cost is $350 million to bring one drug to market. And since most drugs fail, $ 5 billion will be spent on various attempts before one makes it to market. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/ Yes, I am looking at the FDA fees. quote: Then please provide some figures for that pablum. because the average cost to get a drug approved in the united states tops $700 million dollars. I doubt they spend $700,000 dollars getting it approved in most countries. Who does the approval? The FDA

Lucylastic -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 7:27:43 AM)
A canadian perspective, in light of the new EU trade deal Canada has just struck http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/18/eu_trade_deal_could_bring_higher_drug_costs_for_canadians.html According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, prescription drug spending now represents 16 per cent of health spending, behind hospitals but ahead of physicians. Prescription drug spending is estimated at almost $27 billion in 2011 and $28 billion in 2012. Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug. Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year. “On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.”

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 7:52:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A canadian perspective, in light of the new EU trade deal Canada has just struck http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/18/eu_trade_deal_could_bring_higher_drug_costs_for_canadians.html According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, prescription drug spending now represents 16 per cent of health spending, behind hospitals but ahead of physicians. Prescription drug spending is estimated at almost $27 billion in 2011 and $28 billion in 2012. Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug. Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year. “On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.” Do you oppose drug patents?

Lucylastic -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 8:38:39 AM)
I do when it gouges the end payer, forced to pay a hundred and sixty odd thousand a year for one medication

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 9:45:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I do when it gouges the end payer, forced to pay a hundred and sixty odd thousand a year for one medication How is it determined that a price is "gouging" or not? I'm all for not extending patents past their original terms. Currently, a patent is in force for 20 years from date of patent. If a manufacturer patents a drug before all trials are done, the length of time to recoup money is shortened. This is a known term and Big Pharma should have to abide by it, planning appropriately.

Lucylastic -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 9:51:44 AM)
Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug. Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year. “On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.” From the link I posted before

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 4:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug. Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year. “On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.” From the link I posted before Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. I read the article. I'm well aware of the high cost of brand-name medications, relative to their generic counterparts. You stated that you oppose drug patents when it gouges the end payer. That implies that you aren't opposed if the end payer isn't being gouged. How are you defining "gouging?" What is an acceptable cost differential? And, delaying any generic certainly does cost more, but that helps Big Pharma run, doesn't it? What would the point of researching and developing a new drug if there wasn't a profit to be made? Big Pharma (or any for-profit business, really) isn't in business of altruism. Big Pharma is in the business of making money by filling a need. It costs money to develop products. That money is recouped while under the patent license (or, new R&D funding is gained while the patent for a drug is active).

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125