Posted by kazoo on April 20, 2001, at 23:38:08
In reply to Antidepressant affordability, posted by SalArmy4me on April 18, 2001, at 19:11:20
Greetz to SalArmy4me:
Re. your recent drug price list: COUGH! COUGH!
===============================================
DOWN ON THE PHARM
If you never see drug company ads in the New England Journal of Medicine,
the answer could lie with a recent editorial that savages the pharmaceutical
industry for putting profits ahead of people.First, the editorial made out the case for the drug companies: That the
free market is conducive to the development of new drugs, that high prices
reflect both the risks and costs of developing new products, and that price
controls or other government intervention would only stifle innovation at
the expense of the public.Not quite, says the New England Journal of Medicine. The top 10 drug
companies make profits of about 30 percent. Last year the pharmaceutical
industry realized an 18.6 percent return on revenues. Commercial banking
was second at 15.8 percent, and other industries ranged from 0.5 to 12.1
percent. In the words of the Journal:"An industry whose profits outstrip not only those of every other industry
in the United States, but often its own research and development costs,
simply cannot be considered very risky."As for the drug companies holding up the banner of free enterprise, the
Journal concludes, "that image is very far from the truth." Much of the
early basic research is funded by the NIH. Only later, usually, when the
research shows promise, do the drug companies become involved. And not only
are its research and development costs tax deductible, but so are its
marketing expenses. During 1993-1996, the drug industry paid tax at only
16.1 percent of revenues compared to 27.3 for other US industries.Oh yes, and once a drug is patented, the company enjoys a
government-guaranteed 17-year monopoly.As to so-called innovation, much of the industry research is dedicated to
coming up with "me-too" products. (Those who have responded well to Prozac
alternatives may feel differently, but you get the picture.)The industry, in the meantime, has been ingenious in finding ways to extend
patents on its bestselling drugs. (Eli Lilly has already accomplished this
with Prozac, and plans to come out with an improved version when its patent
runs out in 2001.)And one last point, drug companies spend much more on marketing than on
research and development.In conclusion, in the words of the Journal:
"The pharmaceutical industry is extraordinarily privileged. It benefits
enormously from publicly funded research, government-granted patents, and
large tax breaks, and it reaps lavish profits. For these reasons, and
because it makes products of vital importance to the public health, it
should be accountable not only to its shareholders, but also to society at
large."And no, Ralph Nader did not write that editorial.
=================================
(a broke) kazoo
poster:kazoo
thread:60377
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010417/msgs/60643.html