Question

[Confounding]

How does it happen that many of the prescription drugs sold in Canada are sold for a fraction of what they are sold for here? Life saving drugs made in the same factories and put in the same bottles are substantially more expensive in the United States. Why is that? Also, why are we not allowed to buy those drugs from Canada where they are cheaper? Could it perhaps have something to do with the pharmaceutical industry pouring money into politics? Maybe we should do something about that.

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe you should learn something about the FDA.

 

[Grandma]

The reason is that Canada has single-payer healthcare and those running that program refused to be taken hostage by Big Pharma as the US has.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does it happen that many of the prescription drugs sold in Canada are sold for a fraction of what they are sold for here? Life saving drugs made in the same factories and put in the same bottles are substantially more expensive in the United States. Why is that? Also, why are we not allowed to buy those drugs from Canada where they are cheaper? Could it perhaps have something to do with the pharmaceutical industry pouring money into politics? Maybe we should do something about that.

How does it happen that many of the prescription drugs sold in Canada are sold for a fraction of what they are sold for here?

They force our drug companies to sell them to their National Healthcare system for pennies on the dollar.

Also, why are we not allowed to buy those drugs from Canada where they are cheaper?

After Canada rips off our drug companies, Canada kindly agrees to not **** our drug companies more by reselling the drugs into the US.

 

[Confounding]

They force our drug companies to sell them to their National Healthcare system for pennies on the dollar.

Do drug companies take a net loss from selling to Canada or is it still profitable?

 

[Arianrhod]

Here's the scenario:

American pharma companies are usually headquartered in Northern New Jersey or San Diego. Fancy HQ buildings with lots of greenery around them where the CEO and the board work and where - usually, but not always - the R&D that creates new drugs is developed in shiny steel and glass labs.

The actual manufacturing of the drugs takes place overseas. Either the basic components are made in factories in China or India or Sri Lanka or Indonesia and then shipped back to the States to be compounded into the "American made" drugs the FDA allows us to purchase, or the entire drug is compounded overseas and shipped to the States.

There are exceptions. While Eli Lilly is working very hard to develop the next Viagra (that's where the $ are), they will often sell their "orphan molecules" - i.e., life-saving drugs for rare diseases that won't earn them much money, but will save tens of thousands of lives a year - to small biotech companies that will develop them in small-scale labs.

If you were looking for a good investment, think of companies like vrtx.com that has developed a life-saving drug for a particular type of cystic fibrosis, as well as a drug to treat Hep-C.

Why are American drugs so expensive for Americans? Because Big Pharma knows you. It knows you'll pay for name-brand drugs because you're mesmerized by the TV ads ("Ask your doctor if it's right for you"). It knows that when someone like me tells you: American drugs are made overseas and shipped to "Canada" (usually just a phone bank of people whole place orders for you from anywhere on the planet at a fraction of what you'd pay at your pharmacy), some Internet Tough Guy will call me a liar without ever bothering to verify my statement.

His aspersions don't bother me - Stupid is as Stupid does, and you can't fix Stupid - but do you trust him to tell you the truth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They force our drug companies to sell them to their National Healthcare system for pennies on the dollar.

Do drug companies take a net loss from selling to Canada or is it still profitable?

AFAIK, they pay above the cost to manufacture the pills, without a lot left over to pay for the hundreds of millions of dollars in research it took to create the drug and pull it through the FDA hoops.

 

[Confounding]

AFAIK, they pay above the cost to manufacture the pills, without a lot left over to pay for the hundreds of millions of dollars in research it took to create the drug and pull it through the FDA hoops.

Somehow I don't think the cost of research is much of an issue.

WHO | Pharmaceutical Industry

"The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AFAIK, they pay above the cost to manufacture the pills, without a lot left over to pay for the hundreds of millions of dollars in research it took to create the drug and pull it through the FDA hoops.

Somehow I don't think the cost of research is much of an issue.

WHO | Pharmaceutical Industry

"The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%."

Somehow I don't think the cost of research is much of an issue.

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

 

[Confounding]

Somehow I don't think the cost of research is much of an issue.

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

Despite the cost of development they are still insanely profitable; it's not an issue. Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but I thought taxpayers pay for a portion of much of that drug research they profit from.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Somehow I don't think the cost of research is much of an issue.

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

Despite the cost of development they are still insanely profitable; it's not an issue. Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but I thought taxpayers pay for a portion of much of that drug research they profit from.

Despite the cost of development they are still insanely profitable

They are profitable. Not insanely so.

but I thought taxpayers pay for a portion of much of that drug research they profit from

How?

 

[Iceweasel]

Somehow I don't think the cost of research is much of an issue.

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

Despite the cost of development they are still insanely profitable; it's not an issue. Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but I thought taxpayers pay for a portion of much of that drug research they profit from.

Where did you get that idea from? The other thing you aren't factoring in is litigation. Something goes wrong with someone and they can sue for millions. And class action suits take it to the stratosphere.

 

[Confounding]

How?

Where did you get that idea from?

Drugs developed by Uncle Sam, PhD, play an outsized role in medicine

If you take prescription medications, thank a taxpayer. That’s the take-away from an article being published in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the role of “public-sector research institutions” – think universities, hospitals, nonprofits and federal labs like the National Institutes of Health – in drug development.

Historically, government-funded scientists conducted basic research and private companies used that information to create pharmaceutical products. For instance, NIH researcher Julius Axelrod won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970 for his fundamental discoveries about neurotransmitters; later, companies like Eli Lilly & Co., Pfizer and SmithKline Beecham built on that work to develop the class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, including Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil.

But public-sector research institutions (or PSRIs, for short) became more active players in drug development following the biotech revolution of the mid-1970s. Government-funded researchers used recombinant DNA technology and monoclonal antibodies to discover and invent biologic and small-molecule drugs. Patents proliferated, but few of these candidate drugs were licensed to the private sector. Then, in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act and other federal legislation changed the rules on technology licensing, making it more appealing for drug companies.

A group of researchers from Boston University, the NIH and the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation set out to quantify the contribution of PSRIs toward development of drugs and vaccines that have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The task required them to spend a great deal of time with the FDA’s Orange Book, which details the patent history of all new drug applications that were ultimately approved. They also scoured news reports and company announcements and surveyed academic technology licensing officers to catch any other drugs they might have missed. Altogether, they gave 75 PSRIs credit for inventing 153 new drugs that won FDA approval from 1970 to 2009.

 

[Iceweasel]

How?

Where did you get that idea from?

Drugs developed by Uncle Sam, PhD, play an outsized role in medicine

If you take prescription medications, thank a taxpayer. That’s the take-away from an article being published in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the role of “public-sector research institutions” – think universities, hospitals, nonprofits and federal labs like the National Institutes of Health – in drug development.

Historically, government-funded scientists conducted basic research and private companies used that information to create pharmaceutical products. For instance, NIH researcher Julius Axelrod won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970 for his fundamental discoveries about neurotransmitters; later, companies like Eli Lilly & Co., Pfizer and SmithKline Beecham built on that work to develop the class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, including Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil.

But public-sector research institutions (or PSRIs, for short) became more active players in drug development following the biotech revolution of the mid-1970s. Government-funded researchers used recombinant DNA technology and monoclonal antibodies to discover and invent biologic and small-molecule drugs. Patents proliferated, but few of these candidate drugs were licensed to the private sector. Then, in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act and other federal legislation changed the rules on technology licensing, making it more appealing for drug companies.

A group of researchers from Boston University, the NIH and the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation set out to quantify the contribution of PSRIs toward development of drugs and vaccines that have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The task required them to spend a great deal of time with the FDA’s Orange Book, which details the patent history of all new drug applications that were ultimately approved. They also scoured news reports and company announcements and surveyed academic technology licensing officers to catch any other drugs they might have missed. Altogether, they gave 75 PSRIs credit for inventing 153 new drugs that won FDA approval from 1970 to 2009.

It says drug companies benefited from public research. That's true with any field. I'm all for getting government out of universities though.

 

[Confounding]

It says drug companies benefited from public research.

So what I said is true, yes? Taxpayers pay for a portion of the research the drug companies are profiting from. You presented your argument as if the drug companies pay for everything, which isn't true.

 

[Iceweasel]

It says drug companies benefited from public research.

So what I said is true, yes? Taxpayers pay for a portion of the research they are profiting from. You presented your argument as if the drug companies pay for everything, which isn't true.

They benefit like engineers benefit from mathematics. They don't take the drugs and make them with their name on it. You are trying hard to move the goal posts.

 

[Confounding]

They benefit like engineers benefit from mathematics.

I think that's a bad comparison.

They don't take the drugs and make them with their name on it. You are trying hard to move the goal posts.

Drug companies do not cover the entire cost of drug research and development, true or false?

 

[Iceweasel]

They benefit like engineers benefit from mathematics. They don't take the drugs and make them with their name on it. You are trying hard to move the goal posts.

Drug companies do not cover the entire cost of drug research, true or false?

That would depend on the drug. You are ignoring everything else for some odd reason.

 

[Confounding]

That would depend on the drug.

If taxpayers cover any of the cost of researching and developing any of the drugs the pharmaceutical industry profits from then my statement is true, yes?

You are ignoring everything else for some odd reason.

I elect not to respond to a lot of things. The reason why could be anything from me thinking what you said is beside the point to me just not being patient/interested enough to respond. Or maybe your point was just too good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would depend on the drug.

If taxpayers cover any of the cost of researching and developing any of the drugs the pharmaceutical industry profits from then my statement is true, yes?

You are ignoring everything else for some odd reason.

I elect not to respond to a lot of things. The reason why could be anything from me thinking what you said is beside the point to me just not being patient/interested enough. Or maybe your points were so good I was left speechless.

If taxpayers cover any of the cost of researching and developing any of the drugs the pharmaceutical industry profits from then my statement is true, yes?

Considering the INSANE profits they make, and the cut the government gets of those profits, about a third, did you have another point here?

Because I'm pretty sure the $2.5 billion number that my link showed was strictly spending on the drug company side.