Big Pharma at it again - Page 3

newagain888888 · ‎12-31-2010

More and more the average middle-class working citizen is being squeezed so that what used to be considered a basic is now a luxury. Like meds. Recently, there have been articles from esteemedd physicians noting that our healthcare system system has turned upside down in that (for the first time in our history) the very wealthy and very low income families have regular healthcare coverage while the middle class is commonly foregoing care due to higher deductibles and increases in overall care and medicines.

I know this is true in my own family. My husband's company no longer provides affordable health insurance. The cost we bear for our health insurance premiums and then the very high deductibles mean that we keep the insurance for life and death emergencies only. We use our local drugstore's Minute Clinic and pay out of pocket for those visits and everything else. Meds are the biggest problem. A formerly affordable prescription cream for dermatitis cost $625 under my husband's plan and a common antibiotic (generic) is $420. Our prescription costs cannot be applied toward the deductible, which is several thousand dollars per year.

Pharmaceutical prices are set for what the market will bear. The very same medicines that are costly, even exorbitant in our own country are a tiny fraction of that cost in other countries. These are the same drugs manufactured and licensed by our own pharmaceutical companies. It is a complex issue with social, political, and financial considerations: one with no easy answers. However, I agree with comments made by the medical establishment. When our working class no longer has manageable access to regular healthcare, what will this mean for our future economy since they carry the majority of the tax burden.

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

We can't make sense of it because there are 100 factors that go into pricing a drug and actual cost of the ingredients comes it at 99. We have no way of knowing what's going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the company is looking fo ra rationale to stop making these drugs and if the prices are so ridiculously high that people don't buy them, they stop. There are many other drugs for skin diseases so they are essentially shifting patients to other, less expensive drugs.

3suwm5 · ‎06-15-2016

@JillyMarie wrote:
Research for meds that few could afford would be pointless.

Rarely do companies decide on the research topic. That is chosen for them.

We get a list of topics to bid. The research we do - is to find a better, cheaper, faster. It's usually a tall order and RARELY successful. When that research has completed and the $$ are all gone, we have nothing. That's when profits from other 'winners' kick in. Our research subjects are chosen due to problems with the other options of that subject failing, not producible or cost prohibitive to make.

I can tell you that our yearly expenses always outweigh the profits, and that's without any payroll.

Companies have to have incentives to bid on a project, because the % of failure is high. There are many things we don't bid because we know, after 30+ years in the business, it can't be done. Especially, given the $$ for the research.

If you don't look at the casualties of the research, you can probably find someone to build better, cheaper, faster. Based on our experience, that is almost impossible.

I'm just suggesting that one should know all the requirements of the company before deciding if they are right or wrong. Maybe they are wrong, I don't know.

JillyMarie · ‎03-29-2015

@3suwm5 wrote:
@JillyMarie wrote:
Research for meds that few could afford would be pointless.
Rarely do companies decide on the research topic. That is chosen for them.

We get a list of topics to bid. The research we do - is to find a better, cheaper, faster. It's usually a tall order and RARELY successful. When that research has completed and the $$ are all gone, we have nothing. That's when profits from other 'winners' kick in. Our research subjects are chosen due to problems with the other options of that subject failing, not producible or cost prohibitive to make.

I can tell you that our yearly expenses always outweigh the profits, and that's without any payroll.

Companies have to have incentives to bid on a project, because the % of failure is high. There are many things we don't bid because we know, after 30+ years in the business, it can't be done. Especially, given the $$ for the research.

If you don't look at the casualties of the research, you can probably find someone to build better, cheaper, faster. Based on our experience, that is almost impossible.

I'm just suggesting that one should know all the requirements of the company before deciding if they are right or wrong. Maybe they are wrong, I don't know.

Is it safe to assume you work for big pharma?

“All you have to do, I tell myself, is keep your mouth shut and look stupid. It shouldn't be that hard.”
― Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

itiswhatitis · ‎05-27-2016

@JillyMarie wrote:
Laissez-faire capitalism is fine and dandy until it results in products/prices that exclude all but the mega-wealthy. I take losartan for blood pressure. What is to stop pharma from deciding that the price of this drug should be $700 per dose? Absolutely nothing. Quite frankly, I don't see what Tom Brady's [just an example] salary has to do with egregious, predatory pricing on the part of drug companies.

@JillyMarie Yes! Yes! It is understood that we have a Capitalist economy and I have no problem with it. However, when it gets to the point of plain old fashioned unadulterated GREED, many will change their tune about the principals of the other part of our economy (Socialism).

There comes a time when what's best for the "greater good", should trump what businesses want, but then I'm reminded of the other side of the coin people adhere to.

*Call Tyrone*

3suwm5 · ‎06-15-2016

@JillyMarie wrote:
@3suwm5 wrote:
@JillyMarie wrote:
Research for meds that few could afford would be pointless.
Rarely do companies decide on the research topic. That is chosen for them.

We get a list of topics to bid. The research we do - is to find a better, cheaper, faster. It's usually a tall order and RARELY successful. When that research has completed and the $$ are all gone, we have nothing. That's when profits from other 'winners' kick in. Our research subjects are chosen due to problems with the other options of that subject failing, not producible or cost prohibitive to make.

I can tell you that our yearly expenses always outweigh the profits, and that's without any payroll.

Companies have to have incentives to bid on a project, because the % of failure is high. There are many things we don't bid because we know, after 30+ years in the business, it can't be done. Especially, given the $$ for the research.

If you don't look at the casualties of the research, you can probably find someone to build better, cheaper, faster. Based on our experience, that is almost impossible.

I'm just suggesting that one should know all the requirements of the company before deciding if they are right or wrong. Maybe they are wrong, I don't know.
Is it safe to assume you work for big pharma?

No, we sure don't work for any medical entities. Maybe if we did, I'd get my meds. for free.haha

itiswhatitis · ‎05-27-2016

@3suwm5 wrote:
All are examples of the free market. If people didn't pay outrageous amounts for a football game, the athletes wouldn't get those kind of salaries. MO

Research, drug approval or NOT, maybe more research, more cost for research, maybe drug approval, start to market and consumer purchase.MO

Research, in our personal experience at our own lab (not medical) is VERY expensive. Costs add up quickly and just because there may be a profit this year, doesn't mean the entire profit will be available next year. It might be spent the first month of the new year on equipment and/or supplies. People don't realize what goes on in research. I didn't until I started taking care of our books. I see it with my own eyes. MO

Anyone having personal knowledge of research $$$ in and out, I'd love to hear your take on it.

I don't have any personal experience with R&D, but I know corporations get tax breaks for every product existing that has been improved, re-packaged or used as off lablel. Those tax breaks are YUGE, LOL. Then there's the "value added tax." I understand what your'e saying @3suwm5, but these companies are not running on empty all the time and they can stop these outrageous price gouging.

*Call Tyrone*

3suwm5 · ‎06-15-2016

@itiswhatitis wrote:
@3suwm5 wrote:
All are examples of the free market. If people didn't pay outrageous amounts for a football game, the athletes wouldn't get those kind of salaries. MO

Research, drug approval or NOT, maybe more research, more cost for research, maybe drug approval, start to market and consumer purchase.MO

Research, in our personal experience at our own lab (not medical) is VERY expensive. Costs add up quickly and just because there may be a profit this year, doesn't mean the entire profit will be available next year. It might be spent the first month of the new year on equipment and/or supplies. People don't realize what goes on in research. I didn't until I started taking care of our books. I see it with my own eyes. MO

Anyone having personal knowledge of research $$$ in and out, I'd love to hear your take on it.
I don't have any personal experience with R&D, but I know corporations get tax breaks for every product existing that has been improved, re-packaged or used as off lablel. Those tax breaks are YUGE, LOL. Then there's the "value added tax." I understand what your'e saying @3suwm5, but these companies are not running on empty all the time and they can stop these outrageous price gouging.

Our company gets tax breaks for certain pieces of equipment we have or need to purchase for the job, for us it is not huge, just a small percentage of the value of the equipment. That value is not decided by us, we are told the value. It's also based on the research topics we choose. In terms of the value added tax, I don't know the particulars.

It's complicated, that's why we pay a fortune for our accountant.lol The last audit we had, they were down our throats for a $3.00 charge, we couldn't find. I'm not kidding.

We don't do research for the general public, per se. We don't make a better 'paper clip' so to speak. For us, we can be one equipment failure from bankruptcy.

Believe me, I'm not happy with the cost of many things myself. I do believe there is plenty of gouging.

I still want the free market and definitely want research to continue.

3suwm5 · ‎06-15-2016

@itiswhatitis

It's also based on years of life for the equipment, like an amortization schedule. In our case, we were given 7 years of that % of equipment value. After 7 years, cross your fingers your equipment last for a long time.

Like I said, it's complicated.lol

winamac1 · ‎12-29-2010

First of all...I call on Dermatologists

Secondly, I have eczema and atopic dermatis!

I've never heard of this drug, and I don't think I've heard of this Company.

and, without big pharma....we'd not have the drugs that save lives.

I assure you....people who need these expensive medications, get drugs for FREE.

Medicaid patients get the biologic I "promote" that costs $3800 a month for FREE.

Insurance patients with copay cards pay $10

Medicare, up to 500% of the Federal Poverty Level, get the product I promote for FREE.

People have to take responsiblity and check these drug-co. programs out! I deal with this DAILY.

Patients need to make the attempt and effort to get screened either for "extra help/low-income subsidy" or free drug foundation programs. They NEED to call back and give financials and often times these expensive drugs are FREE!!

I'm not buying it...

LOOK INTO DRUG COMPANY PROGRAMS...they are out there!!!

Take some personal responsiblity...

"friends don't let friends drink white zinfandel"