What percent of drug revenues goes into r&d?

[Arianrhod]

You don't believe people should make decisions about their own bodies?

A good doctor discusses medications with their patient before prescribing them. As someone who hasn't been to a doctor since 1989, you might not be aware of that.

Besides, there's this wonderful thing called the Internet, where you can find the package insert, contraindications and side effects, etc. TV advertising is antiquated and geared toward a certain population.

"Ask your doctor if XYZ is right for you" is a sales pitch, geared toward those who believe there's a pill for everything. Do they have the medical expertise to make that judgment, or are they acting on gullibility?

Hey, I don't believe in pills anyway. I'm just a supporter of business and believe companies can produce products and market them to consumers.
Consumers are free to accept the products or not.
And yes the internet is a wonderful resource. Consumers should use any resource available to help them make their choices.

And I have to admit I get a kick out of those commercials, especially when they get to the "Possible side effects may include..." part.

To me the side effects sound worse than the affliction being treated.

Very often they are. Which is why it's amazing how many people watch those commercials and think "Oooh, I've got to run to the doctor and get me some of those!"

 

[CultureCitizen]

As of 2013, many of the largest pharmaceutical firms spend nearly 20% on R&D. Of the 20 largest R&D spending industrial companies in the world, pharmaceutical companies make up nearly half the list. Eli Lilly is currently spending roughly 23% on R&D. Biogen is right behind, at approximately 22%. Both Roche and Merck are spending just under 20%. Pfizer and AstraZeneca are closer to the 15% level, along with GlaxoSmithKline. Abbott Laboratories is on the lower end of the spectrum, dedicating about 12% of revenues to R&D spending.

I got a similar figure through a different path : 17.5% It is quite high , but still other expenses are higher . Mainly Marketing and selling. Amazing isn't it ?

You don't think companies should be allowed to market their products?

No, ah, well , at least not prescription drugs. The drugs are prescribed by doctors, bought by hospitals and patients and consumed by the patient. It is not like buying a loaf of bread in which you make the choice. The choice is actually made by a third party.
And publicity aimed at doctors? I am not sure that is ethical. Send them test trials and dosiers with advantages about the drug, sure. Publicity? Why at all ?

You don't believe people should make decisions about their own bodies?

I guess pro choice only has one meaning...

Then the proper thing would be to disclose studies with stats and a layman's guide to interpret them , not just publicity.
That would be an informed decision.

 

[Two Thumbs]

As of 2013, many of the largest pharmaceutical firms spend nearly 20% on R&D. Of the 20 largest R&D spending industrial companies in the world, pharmaceutical companies make up nearly half the list. Eli Lilly is currently spending roughly 23% on R&D. Biogen is right behind, at approximately 22%. Both Roche and Merck are spending just under 20%. Pfizer and AstraZeneca are closer to the 15% level, along with GlaxoSmithKline. Abbott Laboratories is on the lower end of the spectrum, dedicating about 12% of revenues to R&D spending.

I got a similar figure through a different path : 17.5% It is quite high , but still other expenses are higher . Mainly Marketing and selling. Amazing isn't it ?

the government puts them through a lot even though they put themselves through more than enough.

 

[Andylusion]

A lot of their money goes into TV advertising for drugs to take care of seemingly made up symptoms and conditions.

I think drug companies should be reimbursed (yes, by us taxpayers) for R&D costs for drugs that actually do something important and useful.

A: Not true. Unlike France, you can't get a drug approved without showing substantial evidence it helps real symptoms.

B: The primary reason drug companies invest tons into advertising is for two reasons. 1. People think they are smarter than doctors, and drug companies know this. People routinely go to their doctor and demand X drug. Which if they were paying for it out of pocket, that wouldn't be nearly as prevalent. 2. Drug companies have to make new drugs that compete with old drugs, for the same problem. In order to get people to switch from older cheap drug, to new expensive drug, is through advertising.

C: Absolutely not. The moment you get the government involved in reimbursing R&D expenses, you are guaranteeing heavy lobbying by companies to get their product reimbursed. That would be great for politicians collecting the billions in lobbying, and horrible for the tax payers. You are begging.... BEGGING for corruption. Did Solyndra teach America nothing?

 

[Andylusion]

It's not just the amount of money they spend on R&D. It's also how long it takes to move a new product to market. In the case of new drugs, it can take decades, and that's a long time to wait for an ROI.

Correct.

In fact, one of the reasons that the major drug companies spend so little on R&D today, is because the defacto method for new drugs today, is to have small startup firms do the R&D. If they fail, they go bust.

However, if they succeed, then they don't even attempt to get the drugs past the FDA. Instead, they simply hang a 'for sale' sign, and let a major drug vendor buy the company, and they then start the approval process.