This chart reveals the inhumanity of US drug prices compared to other countries

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As the following chart illustrates, drug prices in the US are up to 10 times higher than in numerous other developed countries. Data comes from the International Federation of Health Plans (IFHP) 2013 Comparative Price Report.

Heres one pill

Copaxone (for multiple sclerosis)

Over 400,000 people in the US have multiple sclerosis (MS), a debilitating condition that affects the body’s central nervous system. Copaxone — one of the drugs used to treat it — costs between $862 and $1,357 per month in Europe. But in the US, Copaxone costs between $3,900 and $4,018 each month, which is roughly the median monthly income in the US.

I'll chip in on your moving expenses!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

One more thing, to raise the cost of advertising, the FDA regulates the advertisements too.

 

[Zander]

The US is 1 of only 2 countries that permit Direct to Consumer advertising of drugs. (new zealand is the other)


"It's a disgusting, dishonorable way to generate sales--but it works. In 2008, the House Commerce Committee found that every $1,000 spent on drug ads produces 24 new patients,1 and a 2003 research report found that prescription rates for drugs promoted with DTC ads were nearly seven times greater than those without such promos.2 Ethics aside, these consumer hustles have proven to be profit bonanzas."


Only 2 Countries Permit DTC Ads – The US is One of Them

 

[David_42]

The US is 1 of only 2 countries that permit Direct to Consumer advertising of drugs. (new zealand is the other)


"It's a disgusting, dishonorable way to generate sales--but it works. In 2008, the House Commerce Committee found that every $1,000 spent on drug ads produces 24 new patients,1 and a 2003 research report found that prescription rates for drugs promoted with DTC ads were nearly seven times greater than those without such promos.2 Ethics aside, these consumer hustles have proven to be profit bonanzas."


Only 2 Countries Permit DTC Ads – The US is One of Them

That's not a good thing.

 

[Zander]

Unfortunately, when a patient goes in to a doctor's appointment with a prescription solution already in mind, doctors often feel pressured to oblige. An FDA survey of 500 U.S. physicians revealed:4

• About 75 percent believed that DTC ads caused patients to think the drug works better than it did, and many physicians felt some pressure to prescribe something when patients mentioned DTC ads.
• Only 40 percent of physicians believed that patients understood well the possible risks and negative effects of an advertised drug from the DTC ad alone.
• Eight percent of physicians felt very pressured and 20 percent felt somewhat pressured to prescribe the specific brand name drug when the patient asked the physician to do so.

This can have devastating consequences for consumers, who have bought the industry's racket hook, line and sinker, then walk away with a drug they never needed, or which carries unacceptably high risks.

Take Vioxx, for example―Merck's failed drug that caused 140,000 cardiac events, including more than 60,000 deaths, before it was pulled from the market. Merck admits that Vioxx was never intended for the general public. Yet Merck advertised it to the general public. People saw the ads and started demanding it from their doctors, and Merck sold 20 million prescriptions. Far too many people needlessly died before Merck pulled both the ads and the drug.
Only 2 Countries Permit DTC Ads – The US is One of Them

 

[Vandalshandle]

I buy an drugs that are not covered by Medicare from Canada. I have been doing it for decades. I recommend it. You order on the internet, and they come by US postage. no problem.

I would also point out that many of the drugs for which pharm. is price gouging Americans, are not even manufactured by American firms. Glaxo, for example, is a British firm.

 

[paulitician]

It is a cruel world. Making money is more important than saving lives. The Devil is winning.

 

[Zander]

Every show on TV has a drug ad - it's small wonder we have the highest medical costs on the planet. Big pharma wants every man, woman, child, and pet on at least 3 prescriptions a day.

Look at this ad for Cymbalta - Imagine you with less pain!!



Big pharma spent $4.5 BILLION on tv ads in 2014

.....Eliquis, the anticoagulant drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb ($BMY) and Pfizer ($PFE). Third to launch in a group of warfarin alternatives, Eliquis was slow out of the gate after its 2012 approval. But Bristol-Myers and Pfizer socked more money into ads--and marketing--and those numbers have turned around. According to the Washington Post, the two companies socked $221 million into Eliquis ads last year.​

Pharma's ad spend vaults to $4.5B, with big spender Pfizer leading the way

 

[Care4all]

I wonder what it actually costs to develop, test and bring a new drug to market.
anyone have a guess?
in todays dollars.

ok, just got back from googling, and I was right or close to being right....on spending on r&d verses marketing/advertising...this is from 2014....

Pfizer ($PFE), long known for its marketing muscle. The drugmaker plowed $11.4 billion into marketing in 2013, $4.8 billion more than it spent on R&D--a difference of 72%. AstraZeneca ($AZN) is close behind with a 70% difference. The U.K.-based company put $7.3 billion toward marketing last year, and $4.3 billion into R&D. AstraZeneca has been pumping up marketing behind products such as its blood-thinner Brilinta as it preps for the onslaught of Nexium copycats.

But regardless of their r&d expense vs advertising and marketing expense,

Medicare should be allowed to negotiate bulk discounts, like ALL OTHER NATIONS do.

We, Americans should NOT have to pay the r&d costs for the entire world's supply.

every nation should have to pay for the r&d costs, it should be prorated among all customers, not all on just American backs.

 

[Zander]

Having a bad day?

 

[Jroc]

As the following chart illustrates, drug prices in the US are up to 10 times higher than in numerous other developed countries. Data comes from the International Federation of Health Plans (IFHP) 2013 Comparative Price Report.

Heres one pill

Copaxone (for multiple sclerosis)

Over 400,000 people in the US have multiple sclerosis (MS), a debilitating condition that affects the body’s central nervous system. Copaxone — one of the drugs used to treat it — costs between $862 and $1,357 per month in Europe. But in the US, Copaxone costs between $3,900 and $4,018 each month, which is roughly the median monthly income in the US.

Actually the U.S. subsidizes those other countries .Why did Obama sell out to the drug companies with Obamacare?

 

[Lou Skunt]

More socialist nonsense. Why do you leftist believe you are entitled to have everything given to you?

 

[paulitician]

More socialist nonsense. Why do you leftist believe you are entitled to have everything given to you?

You do make a valid point. Too many truly believe they deserve or are entitled to everything. It's a huge problem these days.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I wonder what it actually costs to develop, test and bring a new drug to market.
anyone have a guess?
in todays dollars.

ok, just got back from googling, and I was right or close to being right....on spending on r&d verses marketing/advertising...this is from 2014....

Pfizer ($PFE), long known for its marketing muscle. The drugmaker plowed $11.4 billion into marketing in 2013, $4.8 billion more than it spent on R&D--a difference of 72%. AstraZeneca ($AZN) is close behind with a 70% difference. The U.K.-based company put $7.3 billion toward marketing last year, and $4.3 billion into R&D. AstraZeneca has been pumping up marketing behind products such as its blood-thinner Brilinta as it preps for the onslaught of Nexium copycats.

But regardless of their r&d expense vs advertising and marketing expense,

Medicare should be allowed to negotiate bulk discounts, like ALL OTHER NATIONS do.

We, Americans should NOT have to pay the r&d costs for the entire world's supply.

every nation should have to pay for the r&d costs, it should be prorated among all customers, not all on just American backs.

I kind of agree with you as far as medicare goes, however consider this, if medicare negotiates a lower price for the drugs, what happens to the cost of those drugs to those of us that do not yet use medicare?
other countries should pay full price for drugs developed here and we should all get the lower price instead of it being the other way around.
Maybe those other countries don't have a medical malpractice lawyer to pill ratio of 1 to 1 like we do here.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder what it actually costs to develop, test and bring a new drug to market.
anyone have a guess?
in todays dollars.

ok, just got back from googling, and I was right or close to being right....on spending on r&d verses marketing/advertising...this is from 2014....

Pfizer ($PFE), long known for its marketing muscle. The drugmaker plowed $11.4 billion into marketing in 2013, $4.8 billion more than it spent on R&D--a difference of 72%. AstraZeneca ($AZN) is close behind with a 70% difference. The U.K.-based company put $7.3 billion toward marketing last year, and $4.3 billion into R&D. AstraZeneca has been pumping up marketing behind products such as its blood-thinner Brilinta as it preps for the onslaught of Nexium copycats.

But regardless of their r&d expense vs advertising and marketing expense,

Medicare should be allowed to negotiate bulk discounts, like ALL OTHER NATIONS do.

We, Americans should NOT have to pay the r&d costs for the entire world's supply.

every nation should have to pay for the r&d costs, it should be prorated among all customers, not all on just American backs.

I kind of agree with you as far as medicare goes, however consider this, if medicare negotiates a lower price for the drugs, what happens to the cost of those drugs to those of us that do not yet use medicare?
other countries should pay full price for drugs developed here and we should all get the lower price instead of it being the other way around.
Maybe those other countries don't have a medical malpractice lawyer to pill ratio of 1 to 1 like we do here.

if they spent more on r&d, including testing/trials, and less on marketing the new drugs directly to patients, vs doctors, maybe they'd have less lawsuits? And I betcha they have insurance to cover suits....although i'm certain it's costly!

I'm hesitant to restrict lawsuits, it's the only means we have to make certain pharma tests and retests the drugs, through trials, for harmful affects....and for us to redress grievances....lives are at stake.

I think that all countries/customers buying the drugs should pay a proportionate amount for r&d and marketing.... their prices will go up slightly, and ours will come down drastically for medicare if allowed to negotiate. medicare part D, the pill bill, was never funded, so it's being paid by the general fund/budget, not through medicare taxes....this could be a huge savings for us tax payers.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I wonder what it actually costs to develop, test and bring a new drug to market.
anyone have a guess?
in todays dollars.

ok, just got back from googling, and I was right or close to being right....on spending on r&d verses marketing/advertising...this is from 2014....

Pfizer ($PFE), long known for its marketing muscle. The drugmaker plowed $11.4 billion into marketing in 2013, $4.8 billion more than it spent on R&D--a difference of 72%. AstraZeneca ($AZN) is close behind with a 70% difference. The U.K.-based company put $7.3 billion toward marketing last year, and $4.3 billion into R&D. AstraZeneca has been pumping up marketing behind products such as its blood-thinner Brilinta as it preps for the onslaught of Nexium copycats.

But regardless of their r&d expense vs advertising and marketing expense,

Medicare should be allowed to negotiate bulk discounts, like ALL OTHER NATIONS do.

We, Americans should NOT have to pay the r&d costs for the entire world's supply.

every nation should have to pay for the r&d costs, it should be prorated among all customers, not all on just American backs.

I kind of agree with you as far as medicare goes, however consider this, if medicare negotiates a lower price for the drugs, what happens to the cost of those drugs to those of us that do not yet use medicare?
other countries should pay full price for drugs developed here and we should all get the lower price instead of it being the other way around.
Maybe those other countries don't have a medical malpractice lawyer to pill ratio of 1 to 1 like we do here.

if they spent more on r&d, including testing/trials, and less on marketing the new drugs directly to patients, vs doctors, maybe they'd have less lawsuits? And I betcha they have insurance to cover suits....although i'm certain it's costly!

I'm hesitant to restrict lawsuits, it's the only means we have to make certain pharma tests and retests the drugs, through trials, for harmful affects....and for us to redress grievances....lives are at stake.

I think that all countries/customers buying the drugs should pay a proportionate amount for r&d and marketing.... their prices will go up slightly, and ours will come down drastically for medicare if allowed to negotiate. medicare part D, the pill bill, was never funded, so it's being paid by the general fund/budget, not through medicare taxes....this could be a huge savings for us tax payers.

The research is pretty intense right now as it is.
first the do test on animals to provide some initial information
Then they go through a few different stages of research before the release
Phase one ( initial clinical stage) where they have a small number of volunteers 20 to 100 (mostly healthy) to establish drug safety and dosage ranges for effective treatment and side effects. The data from this is analyzed and send to the FDA for approval to move to the next step
Phase two (clinical pharmacological evaluation stage) is to eliminate investigator bias and determine side effects and the effectiveness of the treatment. This time the test group is larger 100 to 300 volunteers with the medical problem that the drug is supposed to treat. and again, statistical evaluation of the information is carried out before proceeding.
Phase three (extended clinical evaluation stage) by this point the company has a good idea of the effectiveness and the dangers of the drug so it can be offered to a wider group of clinics and physicians, this is where the drug first becomes available on a wide experimental basis. Again with an analysis of the effectiveness, side effect and recommended dosage.
If after this the company is able to show that the drug is effective and safe the company can submit a new drug application (NDA) to the FDA to consider approving the drug.
If after going through all of the data from the trials the FDA decides that the risk of using the drug justifies its potential benefits, then the FDA will usually ask for some additional testing before the drug is determined safe and effective and granting permission to market it.
thats when the company can get the permission to market.
This is a long process of years that is not cheap. so you can imagine that the company wants to recover the costs as quickly as it can, and they have to recover costs before the patent expires and other companies are able to reproduce the drug under generic names.
thus the expense.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder what it actually costs to develop, test and bring a new drug to market.
anyone have a guess?
in todays dollars.

ok, just got back from googling, and I was right or close to being right....on spending on r&d verses marketing/advertising...this is from 2014....

Pfizer ($PFE), long known for its marketing muscle. The drugmaker plowed $11.4 billion into marketing in 2013, $4.8 billion more than it spent on R&D--a difference of 72%. AstraZeneca ($AZN) is close behind with a 70% difference. The U.K.-based company put $7.3 billion toward marketing last year, and $4.3 billion into R&D. AstraZeneca has been pumping up marketing behind products such as its blood-thinner Brilinta as it preps for the onslaught of Nexium copycats.

But regardless of their r&d expense vs advertising and marketing expense,

Medicare should be allowed to negotiate bulk discounts, like ALL OTHER NATIONS do.

We, Americans should NOT have to pay the r&d costs for the entire world's supply.

every nation should have to pay for the r&d costs, it should be prorated among all customers, not all on just American backs.

I kind of agree with you as far as medicare goes, however consider this, if medicare negotiates a lower price for the drugs, what happens to the cost of those drugs to those of us that do not yet use medicare?
other countries should pay full price for drugs developed here and we should all get the lower price instead of it being the other way around.
Maybe those other countries don't have a medical malpractice lawyer to pill ratio of 1 to 1 like we do here.

if they spent more on r&d, including testing/trials, and less on marketing the new drugs directly to patients, vs doctors, maybe they'd have less lawsuits? And I betcha they have insurance to cover suits....although i'm certain it's costly!

I'm hesitant to restrict lawsuits, it's the only means we have to make certain pharma tests and retests the drugs, through trials, for harmful affects....and for us to redress grievances....lives are at stake.

I think that all countries/customers buying the drugs should pay a proportionate amount for r&d and marketing.... their prices will go up slightly, and ours will come down drastically for medicare if allowed to negotiate. medicare part D, the pill bill, was never funded, so it's being paid by the general fund/budget, not through medicare taxes....this could be a huge savings for us tax payers.

The research is pretty intense right now as it is.
first the do test on animals to provide some initial information
Then they go through a few different stages of research before the release
Phase one ( initial clinical stage) where they have a small number of volunteers 20 to 100 (mostly healthy) to establish drug safety and dosage ranges for effective treatment and side effects. The data from this is analyzed and send to the FDA for approval to move to the next step
Phase two (clinical pharmacological evaluation stage) is to eliminate investigator bias and determine side effects and the effectiveness of the treatment. This time the test group is larger 100 to 300 volunteers with the medical problem that the drug is supposed to treat. and again, statistical evaluation of the information is carried out before proceeding.
Phase three (extended clinical evaluation stage) by this point the company has a good idea of the effectiveness and the dangers of the drug so it can be offered to a wider group of clinics and physicians, this is where the drug first becomes available on a wide experimental basis. Again with an analysis of the effectiveness, side effect and recommended dosage.
If after this the company is able to show that the drug is effective and safe the company can submit a new drug application (NDA) to the FDA to consider approving the drug.
If after going through all of the data from the trials the FDA decides that the risk of using the drug justifies its potential benefits, then the FDA will usually ask for some additional testing before the drug is determined safe and effective and granting permission to market it.
thats when the company can get the permission to market.
This is a long process of years that is not cheap. so you can imagine that the company wants to recover the costs as quickly as it can, and they have to recover costs before the patent expires and other companies are able to reproduce the drug under generic names.
thus the expense.

Without fear of the lawsuits, they may not be as rigorous....

thank you for filling me in on the process!

 

[Vandalshandle]

For years, pharm has been direct marketing to patients, pushing Oxycontin. At the same time, they were pushing it to doctors. After more than a decade of this, it became evident that Oxycontin became one of the most abused addictive drugs legally available to the public. Doctors finally backed off of prescribing it, because of government studies showing how dangerous it is.

Not all pharm marketing programs are in the best interest of the public. Mostly, it is in the best interest of the pharm. And, BTW, the profit margin for pharm is much higher than any other industry sector.


OxyContin marketing blamed for addiction epidemic

 

[Maryland Patriot]

For years, pharm has been direct marketing to patients, pushing Oxycontin. At the same time, they were pushing it to doctors. After more than a decade of this, it became evident that Oxycontin became one of the most abused addictive drugs legally available to the public. Doctors finally backed off of prescribing it, because of government studies showing how dangerous it is.

Not all pharm marketing programs are in the best interest of the public. Mostly, it is in the best interest of the pharm. And, BTW, the profit margin for pharm is much higher than any other industry sector.


OxyContin marketing blamed for addiction epidemic

What you just suggested is what some refer to as phase 4, once any drug is on the market the research continues to see how it holds up long term, looking at things like, if for instance the drug is used basically on some childhood malady, what is the effect if any on those childrens offspring 20 or so years later. If they see something that they did not expect, then the drug will be pulled at that point. Same with the oxycontin except it wasnt the drug that was bad, it was the way it was prescribed like candy. They knew when they first brought it to market that it was an addictive drug, but if used short term as intended, the risk was low. When it started getting prescribed for long term pain management, thats when the problems became evident. It was never originally intended to be used in the manner that it ended up being used.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

How about let those drug companies sell in America? That should reduce the cost by quite a lot.