Pharmas tend to budget as much for research as they do for advertising.
ETA: well, not quite. I see they spend around twice as much on research as they do on advertising. Still, the point was that it isn’t all we’re paying for.
No change? did you really read what I wrote and think I was suggesting “business as usual”? Never mind economic texts, I think I’ll point you in the direction of some “Peter and Jane” comprehension books.
The money to innovate will still be there, but the big pharma companies will have to find a way of doing more with less. As I said, I have been in the thick of precisely that area it for over a decade and I know, not think…KNOW, how dreadfully inefficient and wasteful they are. They would be forced to find the money for research by driving improvements elsewhere. The ones that fail to do so would fail as a business, the ones that can still develop and innovate within the new business model will be a success. But medical technology *will *progress.
Novelty, your position is a little unclear, but I’m going to ask for direct clarification: is it your position that the FDA requirements are what makes research so expensive, and if costs were driven down, that is where the savings would come from?
It isn’t the only reason but it plays a large part in increasing research costs.
It is a big area of potential savings yes. The better you are at either killing a drug early or hastening it through the regulatory procedures then the better the returns.
I’d love to share the figures with you but I don’t think my recently ex-employer would be too happy about that.
Suffice to say that, given a drop in revenue for whatever reason (which could be a reduction in income from the US healthcare industry), they are not looking at reducing innovation, they are looking to smarten up their act in other areas.
Novelty, I’ve been working with the pharmaceutical industry for over a decade. I was just curious as to your particular position. (We disagree, by the way. But it’s not worth arguing over in this thread, because we both agree costs could be saved, just not how they’d be saved.)
That’s a healthy disagreement to have as the area of greatest opportunity will vary from company to company. I have direct experience of several of the very big players but I appreciate that others have more pressing concerns in other areas.
Would you agree with my general point that, even if US income were slashed, research would still be funded via efficiency savings elsewhere and changes to the operating model?
Without reservation.
hang on, polite and informative discussion…on an internet message board? :eek:
Something is wrong somewhere!
So you’re saying drug companies don’t make a profit in other countries? Huh, that’s quite something. Why the hell are they selling their drugs there, then?