What percent of drug revenues goes into r&d?

[CultureCitizen]

Many times I've heard drug prices are high because of r&d costs.
How much do you think actually goes into R&D.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Many times I've heard drug prices are high because of r&d costs.
How much do you think actually goes into R&D.

http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2015_phrma_profile.pdf

R&D SPENDING Year PhRMA members3 2014 $51.2 billion (est.) 2013 $51.6 billion 2012 $49.6 billion 2011 $48.6 billion 2010 $50.7 billion 2009 $46.4 billion 2008 $47.4 billion 2007 $47.9 billion 2006 $43.0 billion 2005 $39.9 billion 2000 $26.0 billion 1990 $8.4 billion 1980 $2.0 billion

 

[Two Thumbs]

How much of a drug company's spending is allocated to research and development on average?

Pharmaceutical companies spend, on average, about 18% of revenues on research and development (R&D), making the pharmaceutical industry one of the biggest spenders in this area. Outside of the semiconductor industry, no other industry spends more on R&D.

 

[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.

 

[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 ?

 

[Andylusion]

Many times I've heard drug prices are high because of r&d costs.
How much do you think actually goes into R&D.

Who cares?

If you want to lower costs, you need to reform intellectual property rights, and the FDA.

Right now the system has huge problems with drug companies pushing products that are less effective, over older products they don't have intellectual property rights on.

Additionally, the FDA is geared towards avoiding controversy. Meaning that if they prevent a drug getting to market, various groups will start a campaign against those in power, who in turn will shake up the FDA. The FDA people don't want to lose their cushy government union jobs, so they approve many drugs that have no value over existing drugs.

Both the FDA and IP laws need reformed.

As to what percentage of money drug companies sink into R&D.... doesn't matter. None of your business.
I'm so tired of left-wingers thinking they need to shove their nose, up everyone elses butt. None your business what I do with the profits from my company. Keep your dirty brown nose out of everyone's butt hole.

Can I come and audit your bank account, and ask you why you spend money on the things you do? No? Why? Private matter? Ok, then mind your own business. This entire world would be a better place if you followed that simple rule. Mind your own freakin business.

 

[Mr Natural]

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.

 

[hadit]

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.

 

[Defiant1]

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?

 

[Defiant1]

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.

Why would a company spend money on R&D to only be reimbursed?

 

[hadit]

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?

It wasn't really all that long ago that drug companies were not allowed to advertise their products, at least not prescription drugs. Doctors, like my Father, didn't like it when the ban was repealed, because it led to patients demanding the drugs they saw advertised, even if the doctor did not recommend or prescribe them.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many times I've heard drug prices are high because of r&d costs.
How much do you think actually goes into R&D.

Who cares?

If you want to lower costs, you need to reform intellectual property rights, and the FDA.

Right now the system has huge problems with drug companies pushing products that are less effective, over older products they don't have intellectual property rights on.

Additionally, the FDA is geared towards avoiding controversy. Meaning that if they prevent a drug getting to market, various groups will start a campaign against those in power, who in turn will shake up the FDA. The FDA people don't want to lose their cushy government union jobs, so they approve many drugs that have no value over existing drugs.

Both the FDA and IP laws need reformed.

As to what percentage of money drug companies sink into R&D.... doesn't matter. None of your business.
I'm so tired of left-wingers thinking they need to shove their nose, up everyone elses butt. None your business what I do with the profits from my company. Keep your dirty brown nose out of everyone's butt hole.

Can I come and audit your bank account, and ask you why you spend money on the things you do? No? Why? Private matter? Ok, then mind your own business. This entire world would be a better place if you followed that simple rule. Mind your own freakin business.

Sory , healthcare is not a private matter completely . For starters many companies receive public funding or make use of research done by public institutions. Then there's the fact that diseases tend to spread from people to people and sometimes public measures have to be enacted to stop a pandemia.

Now as far as I am concerned they can spend their money in any way the want. What I really can't stand is conservatives shouting that drug prices are high in the US because of R&D.

Yea, don't wory , If I ever need an expensive medication I'll get it overseas.

 

[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 ?

 

[Defiant1]

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?

It wasn't really all that long ago that drug companies were not allowed to advertise their products, at least not prescription drugs. Doctors, like my Father, didn't like it when the ban was repealed, because it led to patients demanding the drugs they saw advertised, even if the doctor did not recommend or prescribe them.

Heaven forbid patients have knowledge of pharmaceuticals and make their own decisions.

 

[Defiant1]

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...

 

[hadit]

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?

It wasn't really all that long ago that drug companies were not allowed to advertise their products, at least not prescription drugs. Doctors, like my Father, didn't like it when the ban was repealed, because it led to patients demanding the drugs they saw advertised, even if the doctor did not recommend or prescribe them.

Heaven forbid patients have knowledge of pharmaceuticals and make their own decisions.

You don't get "knowledge of pharmaceuticals" from advertising.

 

[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?

 

[Defiant1]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Defiant1]

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.