interesting set of articles in CNN today on:
"Why do drugs cost so much?"


http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/pf/h...osts/index.htm
(full text below)


http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/pf/h...uest/index.htm
(detailed info on: "seven pressing questions about
the fortune we spend on prescription drugs")


http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/pf/h...ntro/index.htm
(Brits and Canadians should find this interesting. )


http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/pf/h...hs_1/index.htm
(Healthcare myth: We spend too much)
(Brits/Canadians/Germans should find this interesting. )


http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/pf/h...hs_2/index.htm
(Healthcare myth: More equals better)


http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/pf/h...hs_3/index.htm
(Healthcare myth: We're in this together)
<"Not everyone really wants lower healthcare costs.
Lots of people benefit when you pay more.">...

(which is another way of saying that coz we no longer
pay out of pocket (in the USA), that there is no longer
any real restraint in USA health care costs, which is
likely the main reason why USA health care costs will
continue to skyrocket in the foreseeable future)

best, bill

=============
=============

Why do drugs cost so much?
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/pf/h...osts/index.htm

<" The answers to seven pressing questions about
the fortune we spend on prescription drugs.
October 13, 2003: 11:32 AM EDT
By Lisa Gibbs, Money Magazine

NEW YORK (Money Magazne) - Why do drugs cost so much?

Drug companies say that their prices reflect the
enormous cost of the research and testing required to
develop new medications.

Last year, for example, they spent $32 billion on R&D -- an
amount equal to about 70 percent of the industry's profits.
Moreover, most R&D money is spent on drugs that never reach
the market. The industry points out that for every 5,000
treatments tested, only five make it to clinical trials and only
one ends up in drugstores. Last year, a mere 15 drugs won
FDA approval.

As a result, in recent years drugmakers have come to rely
heavily on just a handful of blockbuster drugs -- $1 billion-plus
sellers. For example, 85 percent of Pfizer's $32.4 billion in sales
last year came from its 10 best-selling drugs.

Once a drug is approved, the company has a limited time
before the patent expires and others can copy the drug and
compete on price, which inevitably decimates sales. Prozac
sales slid 22 percent the year its patent expired, 63 percent
the year after that. Although patents last 2 0 years, the clock
starts running when the drug is first developed, not when it's
approved, so the average sales period is just 11 years.

You might ask, why don't drug companies charge even more?

Because they aren't immune to market pressures. Insurers
must first agree to cover the drug, and then they and other
bulk purchasers negotiate discounts (only those without
insurance pay full freight). And pricing depends in part on how
many patients are likely to use the drug, how serious the
condition it treats is (we'll pay more to tackle a life-threatening
disease like cancer) and what else is available.

When a drug enters a crowded market, the company may
discount to gain a foothold. AstraZeneca, for example, will likely
price its new cholesterol-lowering drug an average of 12
percent below Pfizer's Lipitor, says health-care fund manager
Tom Wald. On the other hand, if a drug is shown to be more
effective and has fewer side effects than what's out there,
insurers will pay a premium.

The other side of the pill

For consumer advocates, another set of numbers tell the
story. Drugmakers' net profit margins averaged 19 percent last
year vs. 7.5 percent for all the companies in the S&P 500. The
seven largest U.S. drugmakers made $31.2 billion last year.

Simply put, critics say, the industry is greedy: They run billions
of dollars' worth of ads a year to drum up demand, employ
overly aggressive tactics to extend the life of their patents and
exaggerate the cost of drug development by ignoring huge
federal tax breaks for R&D and contributions from federally
funded research.

Who's right? Your answer really comes down to philosophy.">

it boils down to one word, "greed"! The pharmaceutical companies can
rationalize all they want about R&D costs, but in the end, they make WAY
more than they spend...

dave

willbill wrote:

I agree high drug prices suck, but it does cost a fortune to develop
them. What makes me madder is the huge and risingcost of health
insurance. Mine is up 19% over last year. Is it any wonder that
employers are reluctant to hire?


willbill <postonNGcoz@sgmbi812isinvalidforemail.net> wrote in message news:<lfgoov8d26aut0tdg7v0u9h113qr2eq5ch@4ax.com>. ..

cc'd by email
Uh Brad - in case you didn't notice, the increase in health insurance
costs is because opf the increase in health CARE costs - and a LOT of
that is DRUGS

Also, the false claim as to how much it costs to develop a drug is just
that FALSE

The drug companies spend more on advertising.

AND, if you look at the so-called "R & D" expense, it includes all of
their marketing studies and design

Look at the return on equity of drug companies as compared to other
companies.


Brad Sheppard wrote:

Bay Area Dave wrote:
Good thing they do. If they didn't, they'd be out of business and you'd
be spending yer money on books that tell ya which tree bark to chew for
whatever ails ya.

Brad Sheppard wrote:

And that's because the consumer advocates have gutted all attempts to
allow the insurors to deny payment for unnecessary treatment.

Sex change operations don't come cheap.

Ted Rosenberg wrote:

Of course. Remember, if ya ask for it, the doc's gotta give it to ya and
the insurance company has gotta pay for it. So ask for it whether ya
need it or not. But it does keep unit costs down.

I think that if they stopped spending all the money to advertise their
products, they could reduce the prices. Greed and overspending, two key
issues,

JMO
Loretta

--
In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:02:10 GMT, "mike gray, CID" <mikegrayCID@worldnut.nut> wrote:

t1 mike, are you gay?

bill (not gay), t1 since '57

willbill wrote:

Naw, just uninsured.

willbill wrote:

Willbill, it's not usually legal to post someone else's complete work
this way. Please give the reference and a short excerpt instead.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:59:32 GMT, "mike gray, CID"
<mikegrayCID@worldnut.nut> wrote:

who cross posting to non diabetic groups?

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:23:51 -0500, willbill
<postonNGcoz@sgmbi812isinvalidforemail.net> wrote:


why would you ask that?

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

"willbill" <postonNGcoz@sgmbi812isinvalidforemail.net> wrote in
message news:4c1povkdqdqtjvuajumcf9qqdbfbef65li@4ax.com...
..
what does sexuality have to do with it? That was a rude question for
you to ask.

Diana

willbill wrote:

Guys? Sex change != gay. It's only vaguely related. And most sex change
operations are paid for by their recipients or their families, not
insurance.

Ted Rosenberg <tedrosenberg@iname.com> wrote:
Bullshit!

More of the same bullshit.

That's what the tax laws allow. Same thing applies to ANY consumer good.
Marketing is the development portion of R&D.

Yeah Ted, that's it. They're profitable, therefore they're evil!

What's the matter, didn't hold onto your PHARMACO stocks through the 80's?

Sounds like more sour grapes to me Ted.

Regards,

James the Elder

Mike ,

You have got to be kidding me , insurers are actually paying for "
sex-change operations " ???? What a total WASTE !!!

no , i am a man in a womans body...no , a computer in a cats body...no
a horse in a mouses body etc... ( why cant the stupid people just be
glad they are what they are and are not otherwise sick ??? )

tim


"mike gray, CID" <mikegrayCID@worldnut.nut> wrote in message news:<Cn_ib.178562$0v4.13725651@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Diana wrote:
Maybe he's only mostly not gay, and looking for a date Friday night?

More seriously, gender and sexuality have a *lot* to do with each
eather. But I've known a couple of trans-sexuals (which are almost
always male->female, for a number of reasons). Their preference in
sexual partners was only somewhat related to their gender identity, and
they experimented with various roles after the change.

Their *taste* in partners, I wondered at considerably, but if I didn't
like people with odd taste I'd never have been able to marry....

Thanks :-) I learn something new everyday.

Di


"Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AiednThtKsXuWhGiXTWJhg@comcast.com...

Tim:

I am a man. I was born with a man's body. I feel like a man. All is in
sync with me. This is true of most people.

What would you do with a person that doesn't have this congruency? There
was a boy that was born with malformed genitals. As an infant, they decided
to make him a girl because of the state of quality of surgery, and because
he'd look more normal as a girl. They tried to bring him up as a girl. It
didn't work. He felt gender dysphoria, knew he was a boy, and eventually
had to have reconstructive surgery to put him back the way G-d made him.

Some people who haven't gone through his experience for whatever reason also
feel this gender dysphoria. Imagine if you felt exactly as you do, but you
had female genitalia. How comfortable do you think you'd feel in your own
skin? How would you feel with other guys hitting on you, but knowing that
you weren't a lesbian (although you wanted to have sex with women the way
that other guys do)?

By the way, even though I'm taking the other side on this issue, I'm not a
guy who is (or would) hit on you, lest you wonder.

Why gender dysphoria occurs is anyone's guess. If we can't change the
orientation, then the only other choice is to change the plumbing to match
it.

There are three orientations:

What gender your physical body suggests
What gender you feel like you are in your brain
What gender(s) you find sexually attractive

None of these are dependent on the other, much as you might like to think
they are. Thank G-d you're congruent (as I am), cause you might not be
mature enough to handle it if you weren't.

Gary






"tim kettring" <tim5kettring@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
news:a7d7f056.0310141932.6c63cd01@posting.google.c om...