Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AppyPappy
How are we getting ripped off?

I saw a chart recently that showed basically the following:

25% of the cost is to research and development
25% is to distribution and manufacturing
25% is to administration and profit
25% is to advertising

I can understand a drug company advertising to doctors and medical personnel, but how many $millions go into those TV ads to the general public. Why? Prescription drugs require doctor's prescriptions, so why are so many millions of dollars spent advertising to patients at home?? Of course, the answer is to influence patients to insist on certain medications from their doctors. [Also, doctors get kickbacks for prescribing certain brands, etc. Drug sales are big business.]

Two things would help:

1. Cease all prescription advertising to the general public. People should not be requesting drugs based on TV ads; doctors should be the ones determining drug needs.

2. Require all drug stores to publish their prices. I was taking one prescript. The last time I went to my local to try to get it refilled, they jumped the price to nearly double. My $17 prescript now costs $29 (generic med). I can order the same from a US pharmacy for $12. The selling prices differ greatly. I have found other drug prices in my little town of 9,000 vary $10, $20 or more for the exact same prescription. Call around to various pharmacies and check their prices, especially if you have to pay full price.
20 posted on 01/23/2005 5:36:33 AM PST by TomGuy (America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: TomGuy
25% of the cost is to research and development
25% is to distribution and manufacturing
25% is to administration and profit
25% is to advertising

I'm not sure which category sales comes out of? A relative of mine works in a clinic. On many days she does not have to buy lunch because the drug company salesmen bring them free food.

My own physician has expressed annoyance at the drug sales teams wasting his time and the time of his staff. On the other hand, I've also been given free samples on a number of occasions.

37 posted on 01/23/2005 6:13:07 AM PST by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy

Yeah. In the UK it's illegal to advertise drugs directly to consumers. I do see what regular folk are supposed to do with that information anyway. If you have a problem see a doctor and let them decide, don't hassle them because of a neat marketing campaign.


43 posted on 01/23/2005 6:32:04 AM PST by johnmilken (the market is wiser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
I can understand a drug company advertising to doctors and medical personnel, but how many $millions go into those TV ads to the general public. Why? Prescription drugs require doctor's prescriptions, so why are so many millions of dollars spent advertising to patients at home??

I have questioned that for years now --- ever since we began seeing the ubiquitous ads for pills, with their laundry list of precautions and the 'ask your doctor' disclaimer. Unfortunately, it is not likely that the advertising will end without yet another darned law on the books.

Advertising generates revenue for the entire pyramid of leeches: the ad production companies, the model agencies and actors, the ad agencies which represent the drug companies, the television and radio stations that air the spots and the doctors who get patients requesting the newest fad pill. (Rarely do you see a genuinely life-saving pharmaceutical product; most are only life-enhancing and sometimes created to counteract a bad choice of lifestyle---it's easier to take a pill than to change your diet or get more sleep, etc.)

I find it ironic that many of the drugs pushed to the public are apparently not fully researched and then have to be pulled from the 'market' -- Vioxx, for example. Could it be that some drugs are being released before they are adequately tested so their marketing can start sooner?

Related issue: There used to be TV ads for Enron. Why? Other than to make their stock look good, I could see no reason. The company did not have a product that was sold to the public, so why on earth would they need to spend big bucks on advertising? (But then I've never understood why the United States Postal Service has to advertise either.)

45 posted on 01/23/2005 6:52:06 AM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
2. Require all drug stores to publish their prices.

Car dealers should be forced to publish their prices too. Sometimes, if you drive to the next block, that second car dealer will sell for a lower price and that's unfair too.

49 posted on 01/23/2005 8:57:53 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with really stupid enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
> 1. Cease all prescription advertising to the general public. People should not be requesting drugs based on TV ads; doctors should be the ones determining drug needs.

The would be un-Constitutional. First Amendment.

Branding isn't free. When the power to brand is taken away, then all drugs will "appear" to be the same. There are many products I buy based on the good, hard-earned name of the company brand. My brands rarely fail me.
53 posted on 01/23/2005 9:50:01 AM PST by Rate_Determining_Step (US Military - Draining the Swamp of Terrorism since 2001!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson