The thing that gets me most is how much we, the taxpayers, pay to fund the research to then have private companies profit and engage in dubious practices that ruin many financially to get the drugs on top of that.
Among publicly traded fortune 500 companies. They spend more on developments to extend patent rights on existing drugs every year. Than they have on fundamental scientific research this entire century.
@@Josh-ks7co I work in the industry there’s foundation support which is classified as charity and there are copay support programs which aren’t and also count as an illegal kickback when applied to government covered patients. Marketing also includes free and trial medications. These all fall under sg&a which is what pundits compare to r&d. these items of course increase sales overall, but it’s a lot more grey than “ooh pharma spends more on ads than r&d” a lot of it gets spent on fighting for patient’s insurance coverage too If you side with pharma on this you say marketing spend increases patient access, if you side with insurance you say these programs make patients use drugs they don’t actually need and increase overall healthcare costs, the truth is of course somewhere in the middle but marketing spend isn’t just ads
@@Josh-ks7co I work in the industry; SG&A includes patient assistance efforts, free trial products, educational events through MSLs, pharmaceutical reps etc etc. but a big portion is copay cards, which are definitely marketing spend because the government considers them illegal kickbacks when given to government covered patients
This was such an excellent, efficient way to summarize a complicated topic! This is a big part of the work I do in health policy so happy to see you all cover investment in innovation. Excited for the next video!
The thing that gets me most is how much we, the taxpayers, pay to fund the research to then have private companies profit and engage in dubious practices that ruin many financially to get the drugs on top of that.
Among publicly traded fortune 500 companies. They spend more on developments to extend patent rights on existing drugs every year. Than they have on fundamental scientific research this entire century.
If a company is spending more on marketing then R&D it feels like that is a plenty clear indicator the incentives arent properly aligned.
@hutima2 source? The statements I see classify it as charity or corporate social responsibility. I think you are being mislead.
@@Josh-ks7co I work in the industry there’s foundation support which is classified as charity and there are copay support programs which aren’t and also count as an illegal kickback when applied to government covered patients. Marketing also includes free and trial medications.
These all fall under sg&a which is what pundits compare to r&d. these items of course increase sales overall, but it’s a lot more grey than “ooh pharma spends more on ads than r&d” a lot of it gets spent on fighting for patient’s insurance coverage too
If you side with pharma on this you say marketing spend increases patient access, if you side with insurance you say these programs make patients use drugs they don’t actually need and increase overall healthcare costs, the truth is of course somewhere in the middle but marketing spend isn’t just ads
@@Josh-ks7co I work in the industry; SG&A includes patient assistance efforts, free trial products, educational events through MSLs, pharmaceutical reps etc etc. but a big portion is copay cards, which are definitely marketing spend because the government considers them illegal kickbacks when given to government covered patients
This was such an excellent, efficient way to summarize a complicated topic! This is a big part of the work I do in health policy so happy to see you all cover investment in innovation. Excited for the next video!
Profit motive is not a good system to developing beneficial, affordable drugs.
When will we cure blindness caused by retinol vein occlusion?
its based on the three part the thesis - antithesis - synthesis so as in create problem - reaction - solution
you are only looking at the surface level the economics which is nothing to do with the real decisions
the problems are created intentionally
the primary driving factor behind how those decisions are made is power (whatever will keep those in charge there longer)
their decision is partly made through the food industry, to start they come up with the things they want to develop
then come up with the poisons that would promote development of said tech
First comment🎉
When will we cure blindness caused by retinal vein occlusion?