Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Pfizer exec: pharmas charge too much for drugs

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
outrider - 07 Jun 2005 21:47 GMT
Rost says that on average, drugs in Europe are about half the price of
those in the United States.

"You have certain drugs that cost 10 times more in the U.S.," says
Rost. "We're talking about exactly the same drug, made in the same
plant, by the same manufacturer."

CBSNews.com Home
Insider's Rx For Drug Costs
June 5, 2005

If you think you're paying a lot for prescription drugs, you're
right. Drug prices have been rising faster than inflation and Americans
pay more for brand-name prescription drugs than anyone else in the
world.

Why? Well, the drug companies and the government say we have to, so the
companies can keep developing new drugs.

But that's no consolation to the tens of millions of elderly and
uninsured who can't afford to pay for the drugs they need.
Correspondent Bob Simon talks Dr. Peter Rost, a critic of the way drugs
are priced and sold in the United States, who also happens to be a vice
president of marketing for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

Rost has taken the risky and possibly career-shattering step of
opposing his own employer, and the rest of the drug industry, by saying
America can have cheaper drugs if it set up a system like the one in
Europe.

Rost says that on average, drugs in Europe are about half the price of
those in the United States.

"You have certain drugs that cost 10 times more in the U.S.," says
Rost. "We're talking about exactly the same drug, made in the same
plant, by the same manufacturer."

And Rost says these are drugs that are also made in the same plant. "It
is stunning," he says. "Once people become aware of it, it is stunning.
And obviously, they get upset."

One example: the commonly prescribed cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor,
made by Pfizer, the company he works for. In the United States, the
full retail price is about $76 dollars for a month's supply. The
exact same drug costs $55 dollars in Canada and just $43 dollars in
Italy.

It's the high price of drugs in the United States that has outraged
Rost and led him to put his career on the line to try to help
America's uninsured find a way to get cheaper drugs. He's a
physician and a businessman who's worked in the drug industry for 20
years - both in America and Europe - marketing and pricing
prescription drugs.

"We're the wealthiest nation on earth, yet we have between 49 and 67
million Americans without any kind of insurance for drugs," says Rost.
"And they pay full price, cash, and they can't always afford drugs."

He says that's because drug pricing is not a free market in the
United States, the way it is with most other industries. Brand-name
drugs have patents, which means no other drug company can make the same
drug until the patent runs out in 20 years.

Remember: Rost is an executive for Pfizer, but he's not speaking for
the drug company.

"The industry likes to talk about the U.S. as a free market. A free
market in this case simply means that the drug industry is free to set
whatever price they want. And mostly patients and others simply have to
pay. There isn't a choice," says Rost. "In a situation like that, you
can obviously raise your prices as much as you can get away with."

Rost makes a comparison to a car company that can charge whatever it
wants for a car: "What's going to happen is if they double their price
on cars? Imagine what's going to happen to their sales? A new car is
not a necessity, but where you're sick, to get treatment, to get
well, and to survive, that is a necessity."

But why can't you just buy a generic? "For some areas, that works
fine," says Rost. "For many areas, there aren't generics available."

Instead of Americans taking buses across the border to Canada to buy
affordable drugs, Rost thinks the drugs should come to them. That's
what happens in Europe, where a tightly regulated system of importing
drugs from country to country has been in place for more than 20 years.

Here's how it works in Europe. Pharmaceutical companies sell the
exact same drug to different countries at different prices. For
example, most drugs cost less in Spain than they do in Denmark. So an
entire industry has developed that buys up drugs in countries where
they're cheaper, and sells them in countries where they're more
expensive, at a discount, of course. The practice is called parallel
trading.

Paranova is a parallel trading company just outside Copenhagen, owned
and run by Eric Pfeiffer. Paranova is stacked with drugs coming from
and going to different European countries.

Pfeiffer showed 60 Minutes how parallel trading works to get cheaper
drugs into the marketplace. An asthma inhaler is expensive in Denmark
and cheaper in Spain. Pfeiffer's company bought a lot of it from
Spain, and is now repackaging it to be sold in Danish pharmacies, at a
discount. They don't make drugs; they're just the middlemen.

"Effectively, what we do is take it out, put the label on and then
it's put back in the boxes again with a leaflet in Danish language,"
says Pfeiffer.

"We sort of walk a little bit into the world of the absurd when you
figure out that what you're doing is spending money to make something
cheaper," says Simon.

"Yes," says Pfeiffer.

The original asthma inhaler is never opened. In fact, no one at
Paranova ever touches any of the drugs, only the outside packaging, and
the factory is inspected regularly by the Danish health authorities.

Pfeiffer says this same arrangement could happen between Canada and the
United States: "Or between Europe and the United States. And by doing
it from Europe, it would even be cheaper than from Canada."

To help ensure safety in Europe, you can't buy parallel traded drugs
over the Internet, only from a licensed pharmacy. Danish pharmacist Uta
Porksen showed 60 Minutes how it works for the consumer.

She displayed an asthma inhaler that's called Spirocort in Denmark.
It happens to be the exact same drug as a product called Pulmicort,
which was imported by Paranova. The big difference? The Spirocort costs
about $40 dollars more.

"If I come in and I've got a prescription for Spirocort, you're gonna
give me the Spirocort, right, the more expensive one?" asks Simon.

"The law in Denmark is made the way that I have to ask the patient if
he wants the cheaper one. And we always ask the patient," says Porksen.

"Ok, you're asking me if I want the one that's $40 dollars less?"
asks Simon.

"Yes," says Porksen.

"And I'll ask you, 'Is it the same thing? And you'll says, 'Yes.' And
I'll say, 'Give me the cheaper one.'"

"Yes, and you will get the cheaper one," says Porksen.

But is parallel trading safe? It depends whom you ask.

"I would be happy to let FDA in here to see how we do it and they would
have no problem whatsoever," says Pfeiffer.

"So, if the big question for Americans, as it is, is, 'Is it safe to
ship drugs from country to country as long as it's properly
regulated?'" says Simon.

"Yes," says Pfeiffer. "For sure."

But in America, the drug companies say they aren't so sure that
importing drugs from country to country really is safe.

Pfizer, the drug company Rost works for, declined to talk to 60 Minutes
about Rost, but Pfizer's vice president of global security, John
Theriault, did tell say that importing drugs is potentially dangerous.

"The position we take is that the more times a product changes hands,
the more opportunity there is for the introduction of bad medicine,"
says Theriault.

"Some people might be skeptical of your saying it's not safe to
import drugs from overseas," says Simon. "You do work for Pfizer and
all the drug companies tend to lose money if drugs are cheaper."

"I'm not making a pricing argument today at all. But I don't think
that patient safety should be sacrificed for affordability," says
Theriault. "I think there needs to be a solution to this problem. But
opening the flood gates to product from all over the world to freely
enter the U.S. market, I think, is a mistake."

"Clearly this is a matter of profits. It's not necessarily a matter
of safety," says Rost. "I mean, I think it would be derogatory to claim
that Americans would not be able to handle re-importation when the rest
of the educated world can do this."

How many cases of death or serious disease have there been due to this
practice?

Rost says "there have been none known due to this practice."

So it works? "It works very well," says Rost.

Has anyone in Europe been hurt by taking a bad drug because of parallel
trading?

"I don't know that anyone has," says Theriault. "But the point is
that we're making the safety issue before that happens."

"My job is to ensure the safety of the American public," says Dr.
Richard Carmona, surgeon general of the United States. He recently
chaired a task force to study drug importation. It concluded that
building a safe system to do it in the United States would be
difficult, and very expensive.

"It could be done. The evidence that we have says it could. But the
cost to do it, the additional regulatory authority necessary, the
hiring of more people, then you have to step back and say, 'Well, is
that cost gonna outweigh any savings benefit that we provide the
American public,' and that's a very tough one."

"Why are drugs so much more expensive in the United States than they
are in almost any other country?" asks Simon.

"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for
research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the
Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead."

The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the
pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll
spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development.

Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut
back on research and development because it's their bread and butter.
They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell
when the patents on their existing drugs expire.

He recently testified before a Senate committee, urging Congress to
pass a bill legalizing the importation of cheaper drugs from overseas,
even though his own employer is against it.

"Stopping good re-importation bills has a high cost, not just in money
but in American lives," says Rost, who says he still works for Pfizer.

Pfizer, however, claims that Rost lacks the credentials to say anything
about importing drugs from other countries. The company sent a letter
to the Senate committee saying, "We have no basis to support Dr.
Rost's purported expertise in this area..." Pfizer also sent 60
Minutes a letter saying: "Dr. Rost has ...no substantive grasp of how
importation threatens the safety of the U.S. drug supply."

"It's an attempt to discredit me. And they should have known better
because they know that I have a lot of experience in this area, so
it's completely wrong, and they knew it," says Rost. "I mean, you
have an insider here who knows how things really work, who has lived
this."

When he goes to work, what kind of response does he now get from his
co-workers? "The majority of the feedback has been basically treating
me like a sinner, somebody who has fallen from the righteous way," says
Rost, who works from home a lot now.

He's still employed by Pfizer, but he's not sure how long that will
last.

A bill has been introduced in the Senate that, if passed, would allow
the United States to import cheaper drugs from other countries, just as
they do in Europe. The pharmaceutical industry opposes it. But the
large drug companies have announced they are expanding their programs
to offer low cost drugs to the poor.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Jun 2005 22:29 GMT
Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
completely runs them together.

For one thing, the Europeans DO honor intellectual property rights. A
drug company CAN charge all the market will bear, when it comes to
selling a patented drug. The only thing that happens in the "parallel
trading" is that a company sells at different prices to different
markets, and there are re-distributors that operate by moving a drug
from here to there, to even out the difference.

Should this be illegal to do (as it is in the US currently)?  In my
mind, it's a matter of contract law. If a movie theater sells a ticket
at a "senior citizen's discount" to a senior, should it be illegal for
an industry to develop to buy these tickets from seniors and sell them
(at a fraction of the senior discount) to people of *other* ages?  Why
or why not? Of course this is exactly the same problem, but in a
different guise.  One can apply this to all kinds of other discounted
or special market products which companies use to sell products to
limited markets to fill up their unused capacity. There are empty seats
on airliners as well as movie theaters. There are empty seats in
football stadiums. Why aren't there people in them?

>>"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for
research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the
Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead." <<

COMMENT

How amusing that Zee should post an article containing this paragraph.
It's perfectly true, of course. So how DO you make people pay their
share of research costs?  What happens when you find you can sell a
drug to a poor country at less than your marginal cost to make more of
it (in the same way you can sell those last seats on a theater or an
airplane) but fine you cannot sell the drug to the poor country at any
price which will allow it to share in development costs?  This is the
essential problem drug companies are faced with. They solve it now by a
semi-socialist system in which the rich are charged higher prices, and
the poor are given an effective discount. Oddly enough, parallel
trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What
then?

>>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the
pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll
spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development.
Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut
back on research and development because it's their bread and butter.
They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell
when the patents on their existing drugs expire. <<

COMMENT:

Well, this only shows that Rost is a moron.  Pharmaceutical companies
do NOT need to be in the parmaceutical business.  More specifically,
these companies are owned by INVESTORS who do NOT need to invest their
money in pharmaceutical companies, but rather could just as easily (and
in a matter of minutes) be investing the same $ instead in oil (SWN),
retail stores (WMT), internet search enginees (GOOG), bananas (CQB), or
whatever.  And who all know it. To the extent that profit is removed
from drug development, companies that do drug development for a living,
will simply disappear (sometimes literally overnight) at the expense of
other companies which are allowed by the market to make a profit.  I
have made the point that drug development dollars disappeared from
India and Brazil when these countries removed the profit incentive for
it. There is no intrinsic reason drug development needs to exist
anywhere on Earth, except as people are willing to pay for it. It's
like yacht building or horse breeding.

SBH
outrider - 07 Jun 2005 22:41 GMT
I'll just respond to the part where you single me out. I wish you could
learn to remove the "personal" from your readings of my posts, and your
responses to them, and to me. This isn't about me. It's about what's
going on...information. But thank you for your cogent analysis. I don't
disagree. I don't agree. It's all your opinion. I welcome it. Zee

> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> SBH
Hank - 13 Jun 2005 03:14 GMT
> I'll just respond to the part where you single me out. I wish you could
> learn to remove the "personal" from your readings of my posts, and your
> responses to them, and to me. This isn't about me. It's about what's
> going on...information. But thank you for your cogent analysis. I don't
> disagree. I don't agree. It's all your opinion. I welcome it. Zee

Saying "I don't agree. I don't disagree." does little to advance the point I
*think* you were trying to make, to wit: My meds cost too much. It's a little
like saying " I sometimes pass gas." What points exactly do you disagree with
and what is your countervailing evidence?

>> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
>> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>
>> SBH
elgoog - 07 Jun 2005 22:47 GMT
> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What
> then?

Unlike movie tickets or airplane seats, these drugs may mean the
difference between life and death. Creating a level playing field to
eliminate the comparative price advantage would incur a human toll in
those countries with lesser ability to pay - but, then we do that today
to our own citizens.

> >>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the
> pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> SBH

Let Darwin decide. </facetious>

-elgoog
Hank - 13 Jun 2005 03:38 GMT
>> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
>> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> those countries with lesser ability to pay - but, then we do that today
> to our own citizens.

Well exactly how would you creat a "level playing field" when dealing with
societies who appear to feel a perfect right to not do basic research and sponge
off of those who do? You can't force them to pay the freight but you can always
mandate lower U.S. drug prices. Would you then also mandate all U.S. citizens to
continue investing in drug companies.

It is not possible to creat a "level playing field" because of so many people and societies
of differing abilities  and differing attitudes. Clearly, many in the U.S. and world
wide think they are owed the best meds & health care and that someone else should
pick up the tab. At some point someone is going to have to pay--unless of course
you would advocate forcing bright talented people into drug research, a situation
heretofore called slavery.

And yes, it is a matter  of "life and death." But then again so are functional
automobile brakes. Should we mandate taxpayer funded research on brakes,
government regulated brake prices and coerce engineering schools into X number
of graduates in brakeology?

Where does it end?

>> >>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the
>> pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> -elgoog
cwrj - 07 Jun 2005 23:27 GMT
A book by Marcia Angell, MD, a former editor in chief of the New
England Journal of Medicine, makes the point that most drug research
work in this country is done by  University researchers and The
National Institute of Health.  Those organizations are financed by the
public in one way or another, so it would seem the taxpayer ends up
paying twice for a lot of drugs.   So much for pharmaceutical R & D.

Angell indicates , as well, that  the industry is often somehow able to
lump those horrendous marketing fees into the R&D category.  Go figure.
zee - 07 Jun 2005 23:40 GMT
Now we're getting somewhere!

Zee
Robert - 08 Jun 2005 09:31 GMT
> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> SBH

I really don't know why people are not seeing what you and I see.
They call the pharm companies as evil money hungry devils and then say that
they would still be in business because of their decent desire to continue
an honest living producing drugs and serving their country.
The presence of money creates growth. No money you see a slow down. Many
hospitals closed because they couldn't pay the bills and these were
non-profit. According to their philosophy they would still be operating.
Reduce the profit and they will flourish according to them.
Where in the world does this thinking come from?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 08 Jun 2005 20:33 GMT
>>I really don't know why people are not seeing what you and I see.
They call the pharm companies as evil money hungry devils and then say
that
they would still be in business because of their decent desire to
continue
an honest living producing drugs and serving their country.
The presence of money creates growth. No money you see a slow down.
Many
hospitals closed because they couldn't pay the bills and these were
non-profit. According to their philosophy they would still be
operating.
Reduce the profit and they will flourish according to them.
Where in the world does this thinking come from? <<

COMMENT:

>From people who write for a living, and usually have it published just
once, so don't give a flying *&^% even if it's reposted or photocopied
after that.

People who write novels or books or anything else that would be damaged
greatly in value, start to become very incensed about copying and
theft. The music and movie industries go bananas and get laws passed.
And copyright is historically much longer than patent, for reasons that
don't make very much sense, but which reflect on the fact that people
who run things in most societies are generally people of money and
words and guns and smoke and mirrors, and are not inventors, tinkerers,
chemists, physicists, or generally people who can do math past grade 5.

SBH
outrider - 08 Jun 2005 21:12 GMT
And then there are the people who wish they could write for a living
but can't, not because they don't have talent, but because they don't
understand talent is the last thing that sells.

Although they talk a good show about the corporate identity, these
people wouldn't write what the corporate identity citates, and would
resent that teh corporate identity would own every word they wrote.

When a freelancer sells an article (unless she is a Shannon Brownlee
and not even then 95 per cent of the time) she signs away lst NA Serial
Rights. The publisher owns all, and will reprint at will, without
paying. The recent copyright legal action looked good in the headlines,
but de facto comes down to the same thing as before. The man owns all.
You don't want to write for the man? Get out of the way someone else
will. (I believe you would call this free market).

The other bit of misinformation you have Steve is that any writer is
writing their own opinion, or has some say over what's going in the
story, or any say in if where and when it will get published. Not
freelancers, not staff writers, and not novelists. There is only one
novelist The New Yorker doesn't dare edit. (Know who? ) The rest are
subject to the mighty red pen.

The only time a writer gets to say whatever he or she wants it's called
vanity publishing. Or the internet.
Hank - 13 Jun 2005 03:43 GMT
> And then there are the people who wish they could write for a living
> but can't, not because they don't have talent, but because they don't
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> The only time a writer gets to say whatever he or she wants it's called
> vanity publishing. Or the internet.

And the point you are making has what relationship to drug prices?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Jun 2005 22:37 GMT
Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
completely runs them together.

For one thing, the Europeans DO honor intellectual property rights. A
drug company CAN charge all the market will bear, when it comes to
selling a patented drug. The only thing that happens in the "parallel
trading," is that a company sells at different prices to different
markets, and there are re-distributors that operate by moving a drug
from here to there, to even out the difference.

Should this be illegal to do (as it is in the US currently)?  In my
mind, it's a matter of contract law. If a movie theater sells a ticket
at a "senior citizen's discount" to a senior, should it be illegal for
an industry to develop to buy these tickets from seniors and sell them
(at a fraction of the senior discount) to people of *other* ages?  Why
or why not? Of course this is exactly the same problem, but in a
different guise.  One can apply this to all kinds of other discounted
or special market products which companies use to sell products to
limited markets to fill up their unused capacity. There are empty seats

on airliners as well as movie theaters. There are empty seats in
football stadiums. Why aren't there people in them?

>>"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for
research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the
Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead
." <<

COMMENT

How amusing that Zee should post an article containing this paragraph.

It's perfectly true, of course. So how DO you make people pay their
share of research costs?  What happens when you find you can sell a
drug to a poor country at more than your marginal cost to make more of
it (in the same way you can sell those last seats on a theater or an
airplane), BUT find you cannot sell the drug to the poor country at any

price which will allow it to share in development costs?  This is the
essential problem drug companies are faced with. They solve it now by a

semi-socialist system in which the rich are charged higher prices, and
the poor are given an effective discount. Oddly enough, parallel
trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What
then?

>>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the
pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll
spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development.
Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut
back on research and development because it's their bread and butter.
They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell
when the patents on their existing drugs expire . <<

COMMENT:

Well, this only shows that Rost is a moron.  Pharmaceutical companies
do NOT need to be in the parmaceutical business.  More specifically,
these companies are owned by INVESTORS who do NOT need to invest their
money in pharmaceutical companies, but rather could just as easily (and
in a matter of minutes) be investing the same $ instead in oil (SWN),
retail stores (WMT), internet search enginees (GOOG), bananas (CQB), or

whatever.  And who all know it. To the extent that profit is removed
from drug development, companies that do drug development for a living,

will simply disappear (sometimes literally overnight) at the expense of

other companies which are allowed by the market to make a profit.  I
have made the point that drug development dollars disappeared from
India and Brazil when these countries removed the profit incentive for
it. There is no intrinsic reason drug development needs to exist
anywhere on Earth, except as people are willing to pay for it. It's
like yacht building or horse breeding.

SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Jun 2005 22:47 GMT
Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects,
intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and
completely runs them together.

For one thing, the Europeans DO honor intellectual property rights. A
drug company CAN charge all the market will bear, when it comes to
selling a patented drug. The only thing that happens in the "parallel
trading" is that a company sells at different prices to different
markets, and there are re-distributors that operate by moving a drug
from here to there, to even out the difference. Should this be illegal
to do (as it is in the US currently)?  In my mind, it's a matter of
contract law. If a movie theater sells a ticket at a "senior citizen's
discount" to a senior, should it be illegal for an industry to develop
to buy these tickets from seniors and sell them (at a fraction of the
senior discount) to people of *other* ages?  Why or why not? Of course
this is exactly the same problem, but in a different guise.  One can
apply this to all kinds of other discounted or special market products
which companies use to sell products to limited markets to fill up
their unused capacity. There are empty seats on airliners as well as
movie theaters. There are empty seats in football stadiums. Why aren't
there people in them?

>>"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for
research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the
Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead ."
<<

COMMENT

How amusing that Zee should post an article containing this paragraph.

It's perfectly true, of course. So how DO you make people pay their
share of research costs?  What happens when you find you can sell a
drug to a poor country at more than your marginal cost to make more of
it (in the same way you can sell those last seats on a theater or an
airplane), BUT find you cannot sell the drug to the poor country at any

price which will allow it to share in development costs?  This is the
essential problem drug companies are faced with. They solve it now by a

semi-socialist system in which the rich are charged higher prices, and
the poor are given an effective discount. Oddly enough, parallel
trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What
then?

>>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the
pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll
spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development.
Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut
back on research and development because it's their bread and butter.
They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell
when the patents on their existing drugs expire  <<

COMMENT:

Well, this only shows that Rost is a moron.  Pharmaceutical companies
do NOT need to be in the parmaceutical business.  More specifically,
these companies are owned by INVESTORS who do NOT need to invest their
money in pharmaceutical companies, but rather could just as easily (and
in a matter of minutes) be investing the same $ instead in oil (SWN),
retail stores (WMT), internet search enginees (GOOG), bananas (CQB), or

whatever.  And who all know it. To the extent that profit is removed
from drug development, companies that do drug development for a living,

will simply disappear (sometimes literally overnight) at the expense of

other companies which are allowed by the market to make a profit.  I
have made the point that drug development dollars disappeared from
India and Brazil when these countries removed the profit incentive for
it. There is no intrinsic reason drug development needs to exist
anywhere on Earth, except as people are willing to pay for it. It's
like yacht building or horse breeding.

SBH
Jeff - 07 Jun 2005 23:45 GMT
That drugs cost a lot less in Europe and Canada is not something new.

Jeff
outrider - 08 Jun 2005 00:03 GMT
> That drugs cost a lot less in Europe and Canada is not something new.
>
> Jeff

I think the story is Rost.

Zee
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.