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

To: DoughtyOne
[...] pharmaceutical houses [...] Is there some room for criticism? I believe there is. I don’t believe it reaches the level of the vast overcharging some people attribute to it.

I would defend my position from a single angle: If the cost of research through manufacture is the problem, why can one simply go to Mexico or Costa Rica (+ else) and receive the same exact medication in the same exact box for a pittance of the cost in the US?

One could say that the price in underdeveloped countries is being kept down because of the sainted work of these pharm giants reaching out to the poor (and that is what the pharms do say)... but I really doubt it. It is much more likely that the US cost is artificially jacked up exponentially.

Supply and demand would dictate that a sufficient supply at a higher volume should be cheaper. Hence the cost should be lower in the US, which undoubtedly is the pill-happy volume center. It should be more expensive in Mexico, where volume and availability are sure to be less.

On this single point I would rest, though I could go further.

90 posted on 10/18/2007 3:01:07 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Vote for FrudyMcRomson -Turn red states purple in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: roamer_1
Supply and demand would dictate that a sufficient supply at a higher volume should be cheaper. Hence the cost should be lower in the US, which undoubtedly is the pill-happy volume center.

Here is the crux of the matter for pharma in the US. Demand is high for pharmaceuticals in the US. There is no clamor for Lexapro (psych drug) or Ambien CR (sleep drug) or Viagra (erectile dysfunction) in Mexico (in the big picture). Those are viewed as luxury items for the wealthy. We view them as part of our Constitutional rights and consume them at high rates (as you point out). That doesn't give us a volume discount. It means our demand is higher. Higher demand --> higher price. And when we have more people privately insured than other companies (where private insurance will pay more to provide customer-sensitive care), the cost will be higher as well.

Secondly, our regulatory system (for all its faults) pretty much guarantees that if you take a script to a Walgreens for Lexapro, you're going to get Lexapro. In Mexico, you might get salt dipped in horse urine covered with a gel coating.

Finally, the average cost to bring ONE drug to market in the US is $1 BILLION (with a "b"). Not counting the 15 drugs that failed in phase 2, the 10 drugs that failed in phase 3, and the 2 that the FDA got skittish about and rejected.

118 posted on 10/18/2007 7:15:44 AM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: roamer_1

On that one point you would rest your case? LOL

Are you saying manufacturers shouldn’t be free to develop the price structures as they see fit from nation to nation? Anotherwords you want Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed to set the prcing, correct?

You touch on the societal factors involved in pricing from one nation to the next, acknowledge why, then seemingly dismiss it out of hand. Do you think Mexico and Costa Rica should pay the same price we do? I doubt you do. So what you come up with is an arguement that if they are going to be charged a lower rate based on their economic standing, we should get the same price break.

On what grounds to you support that, jealousy?


178 posted on 10/18/2007 12:12:50 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Hillary has pay fever. There she goes now... "Ha Hsu, ha hsu, haaaa hsu, ha hsu...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | 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