Brit3964

There is a cheaper drug but for me it doesn't work. So I'm stuffed with paying for the new drug or none at all. My medical ins co is Cigna btw.

Correct Rete. It makes no sense. An 8yr old drug gets a big increase yet a brand new drug is relatively cheap. If you buy an 8yr old car, it isn't gonna be a expensive as a new one. So why is the reverse true with drug prices? I understand the economics of R&D and a private company having to recoup their costs. That isn't what I'm complaining about.

Could be Awesome Wells. I hope so because then I could get the drug much cheaper than present. Unfortunately the pharma companies often employ a little trick, that of claiming their drug is new or improved in some way. By doing so they can extend the patent on it to keep the generics out of the market. If it's true then they have a real reason but often it's just window dressing, like changing the flavor or coating on the tablet which has nothing to do with the active ingredient(s).

What time frame does it become proven? It isn't an experimental drug, it's fully FDA approved. Maybe it's a loss-leader to encourage people to use it?

Awesome Welles

Being wary that you may try to 'catch me out' with my use of the word cure, versus 'control' or 'effectively treat', I would suggest disease states like:

Cancers of the rectum, colon, stomach, lung, oesophagus, tongue, larynx, testes, ovaries, cervix and breast. Then we have malaria, tuberculosis, cholera, botulism, lymes disease. How about syphilis, leprosy, small-pox and yellow fever. Let us not forget glaucoma, retinopathy, osteoperosis and osteomalacia. What about meningitis and hydrocephalus?
Those are just off the top of my head. I could go on in a very boring way.

Incredible procedures like balloon angioplasty and rotablation of coronary arteries, that save countless lives, are made possible by drugs that prevent clotting and restenosis of heart vessels.

20 years ago HIV was a 100% guaranteed death sentence. Today HIV positive patients can lead normal, full and fulfilling lives, due to the efforts of evil, money grabbing drug companies. Same can be said about Hep C, ulcerative colitis/Krohns disease and certain liver cancers.

Type 1 (or 2 for that matter) diabetes patients have normal life spans - 70 years ago, they were lucky if they made it into their 40's (T1-DM pts).
People who suffer with paranoid schizophrenia can receive therapy that keeps them lucid, non suicidal and not a danger to others in society.

But the outrage! The cheeky bastards want paying for their efforts, expertise and investment in future therapies? The MONSTERS! We all work for free don't we? Well they bloody well should too!

One final thought. If the amount of income you receive for your hard work were to be arbitrarily slashed, because there were those in society who decided you were not worthy of it, how incentivised would you be to carry on slogging away, delivering your best efforts and performance? Same applies to drug companies and their stock holders.

Sally Redux

Are you saying that all medical reseach is only carried out by pharma companies? Because it isn't.

Jerseygirl

Nothing was spent on the drug to grow eyelashes...it was spent trying to find a med for glaucoma. Later it was found that the patients using the drug for glaucoma also found their eyelashes had grown.

Bluegrass Lass

Ahh. Thanks for that tidbit of info. I've been thinking how crazy it was that pharma would waste money on something like that.

Awesome Welles

No, I wasn't saying that - but lots of it is either conducted directly by them - or it is funded/sponsored by big pharma companies.
Don't misunderstand my position - they are hardly knights in shining armour, any of 'em - but neither are they evil parasites that prey on the unwell, as has been eluded to.

Awesome Welles

Similarly, a molecule called Sildenafil, which was in stage 2 trials, indicated for pulmonary hypertension (a potentially fatal high blood-pressure condition) had the side effect of curing hypertensive patient's erection problems.
Hey Presto - Viagra. The world was a happier place - particularly for those who were hithertofore, sans bois....

Sally Redux

Sure - but they will only pursue profitable lines of reseach, and a large part of their budget goes into marketing. Why would such a lot of marketing be required if all the drugs were desperately needed?
Researchers funded by government funding bodies such as the NIH here and MRC in the UK and a large number of charities should take some credit too.

Bob

How viagra was discovered, just one of those medical accidents that minted them a pretty sum of cash.

then spawned all those annoying tv ads, the buggers

Giantaxe

Marketing and lobbying, in fact. Pharma basically has the Republicans in their pocket:- hence the sweetheart deal they got when the Medicare prescription benefit was brought in during the Bush administration.

Kaffy Mintcake

Just look at all the erectile dysfuntion drugs, etc. that we have now. I think a lot of it is ... how many people will buy it vs. cost of development.

Duncan Roberts

Why do you think there is no money to be had in cures for major diseases? A cure for something like diabetes would likely be worth morelong term than the top 5 selling drugs of all time combined.

Brit3964

And if you recall, Bush backed the industry in stopping cheap drug imports which threatened their existence. He later backed down once it became apparent his own Republican supporters wanted lower drug costs. The claim that foreign drugs could be substandard to the US equivalent was a hollow argument too. In many cases they are the same as produced here, often by a US subsidiary pharma company.

Awesome Welles

Well, yeah. What commercial organization in their right mind would pursue unprofitable lines of research?
They spend a lot on marketing for two reasons - that are closely linked.
Patients have choices - and they rightly exercise them. Pharma companies have competitors, which is a good thing. The result is innovation and creativity in the science. That means different drugs with unique mechanisms of action developed to treat common ailments. patients who are unable to tolerate one drug, often find a competitor alternative to be highly efficatious.
Who doesn't want choices, when it comes to their healthcare?
As an aside, who funds the NIH and the MRC? You and me as taxpayers by any chance?
Where do the charities, honorable as they are, get their funding? Are they considered evil money grabbers?

Sally Redux

You seem to be rather angry about all this so I think I'll leave it.