The Glade 4.0

Nope, but you know some contractor somewhere surely billed them for the time...

Every time Monsanto or Pfizer has the tachometer on one of their centrifuges calibrated, the have to fill out ten double-sided pages of paperwork.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

That's retarded. And not in the friendly, Corky from Life Goes On sort of retarded way.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

And a lot of the instrumentation runs on and I kid you not machines running windows 95 because the software was never updated or the company was bought out / out of business and can't support it and...there is no and as there isn't any replacement.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Am I the only one skeptical of the profit claims of pharma companies? When they claim a research project cost $10b, that's not what they actually spent. Standard procedure usually is to:

1. Assume the entire budget over the (let's say) 20 year project is sunk on the first day.
2. Compare the project's budget against what you estimate you could have made if you had invested the money into something else. Let's say 7% a year.
3. Factor in the expected rate of inflation over those 20 years. Lets say 3%. Then, take the amount you want to charge and reduce your expected revenue by the expected inflation rate over the 20 year research project followed by the 20 year patent monopoly period.

Therefore, if I want to invest $10b in a drug research program tomorrow where I expect to collect $100k per patient, I can "honestly" claim that the project will cost me $70 billion and that I will only charge $54,379 per patient.

I started writing a detailed response to that post Xeq, but **** it.. it's not worth my time...

Have a cross post from the random picture thread instead...

There are multiple people here who have worked inside large Pharma companies Xeq. Do you trust your fellow gladers?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Facts matter little to people who think profit is a cancer, Elmo.

_________________

I know but I'm either stupid or stubborn that I want to hold their eyelids and shove their face in them thinking they might have the lightbulb go off.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

At what level? And I haven't seen any real facts coming from the supporters here either, just opinion coupled with "trust me I work for big pharm".

Fact is I'm skeptical of any big business' claims around the needs of profit, because I've worked in a number of them, and every single one is greedy and will charge as much as they can get away with. The fact is medical costs are so amazingly high here, because if you happen to be the poor bastard with Hep C, you'll pay whatever they charge if it's in any way possible for you to do it, even if it beggars you in the process. And EVERY medical company knows that and plays off it.

Umm, DFK! and I have written a length, with facts and cites, about why medical costs are "amazingly" high in the United States. That said, the new domestic tariffs on the production, maintenance, and distribution of medical equipment also includes production equipment for pharmatechs and biotechs; you know, one of those provisions in the Affordable Care Act its supporters want to ignore. That first of its kind domestic tariff resulted in an immediate external shift in the supply curve for chemical and biologic drugs in the United States. And it doesn't stop there. You are aware that as of 1 January 2014, states were required to make physician and therapist licenses dependent upon Medicaid and Medicare acceptance. The majority of physicians who did not accept either Medicaid or Medicare started shuttering their doors and closing their practices last fall as a result.

And, yet, no one is talking about it. Maybe you should ask Squirrel Girl why she retired 10 years earlier than she'd originally planned.

Your liberal idealism is a disadvantage on this point, Aizle. Your experience with medical care in Great Britain has you willfully and obliviously ignoring the realities of treatment costs, because you are only looking at your own out of pocket. And, sadly, you believe medical care is a right. Last I checked, the developed world abolished slavery by and large in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Affordable Care Act makes de facto debt slaves our of medical professionals. The push to genericize medications, vacate patents and developmental monopolies on proprietary compounds and products will do the same thing to Biotech and Pharmatech companies in the United States.

Profit isn't evil, and had I not spent the week of Thanksgiving in St. Paul, I would just think you were another liberal. Sadly, you're a Minnesotan and now I understand ...

You need to move to a different a state: the Twin Cities are a glorious wasteland of toxic misinformation, bad social norms, and delusional thinking about how things should be. I walked through the Mall of America just for giggles; the conversations about the evils of "for profits" were everywhere among the shoppers while they glibly spent more money being consumers than I cared to witness. Of course, that point was driven home largely because I got to hear numerous diatribes about the evils of "for profits" from a friend with an Wharton MBA. Minnesota Public Radio is frackin' criminal.

_________________

Aye, these conversations about pharma are always very general, but the actual numbers are readily available. For instance, Wikipedia shows the top 19 Big Pharma companies in 2006 had $498 billion in revenues out of which they spent $71 billion on r&d and pocketed $110 billion in profits. According to CNN Money / Fortune, in 2009 (most recent year the industry comparison tool seems to cover), pharma was the 3rd most profitable industry as measured by either return on revenues or return on assets and the 5th most profitable as measured by return on shareholders' equity. What those numbers suggest to me is that there's clearly plenty of room for profits to be scaled back without impacting r&d budgets, but that there's nothing particularly egregious about pharma's profits by comparison to other industries.


I think this, coupled with the government-enforced monopoly of patents, are the key structural defects in the pharma industry that make it different from other industries. It's not that they have crazy-ass profits or are particularly evil, greedy people. It's just that the inelastic nature of the demand and the artificially constrained supply push prices and profits higher than they otherwise would be.

Having sat in on FDA Advisory Committee meetings (via closed circuit feeds), I'd have to disagree with you. If the summaries and overviews don't provide enough information, the full study reports are attached and linked.

In addition, FDA is starting to take our electronic data itself, so they can run the statistical analyses they want, rather than relying on the pharma company's values.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

I note that prices CAN be lowered, if enough insurers and physicians object:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/busin ... ng-it.html

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

I've been kind of wondering, if oppressive regulations are the main reason stuff is so expensive, why doesn't Obama just discard some of them in order to drop prices and make Obamacare look better?

He's already shown a willingness to selectively enforce the law towards this end and the media hasn't really called him on it. That is how he managed to get a 1 year delay in the implementation of certain parts of Obamacare without Congress' approval.

Khross:

I'd be very curious to see facts regarding this particular scenario, instead of continued whining about how hard it is to be in business today.

As for your attacks on MN, astute readers would remember that I have already moved to Chicago. But regardless, I'll put MN up against any other state in the union. For giggles let's take a look at how it compares to GA where you call home.

91.6% of Minnesotans graduate high school, compared to 84% in Georgia
31.8% of Minnesotans get a Bachelor's degree, compared to 27.5% in Georgia
Minnesota produces $47,028 per capita, compared to $37,702 in Georgia
Minnesota's crime rate is 2,799 per 100k people, compared to 3,790 in Georgia

Seems fairly obvious from the facts which is the more educated, more efficient and safer place to live.

http://state-facts.findthedata.org/comp ... -Minnesota

I'm aware of all those numbers. I'd still rather live in Georgia: the people are nicer and Coca Cola isn't a niche product down here. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the Mall of America that you can only buy Pepsi products?

That said, I stand by my observations: Minnesota's economy and social direction is not sustainable. Likewise, the overwhelmingly liberal, anti-Republican, partisan nonsense I heard coming out of public radio stations in Minnesota was despicable. It wasn't fair, balanced, or even attempting to be so: it was pure progressive nonsense. You want to compare our states side-by-side, go for it. You'll find favorable elements to both, but the thing you won't find in Georgia is publically funded partisanship on ostensibly publically owned broadcast systems.

Incidentally, Georgia is middle of the road on Median Household Income (23rd) ($50,800) to Minnesota's (9th) ($58,900). Amusingly, though, when I correct for cost of living between Atlanta and the Twin Cities, I find that the median household income is identical and actual purchasing power favors Georgia marginally.

Your side-by-side comparison also indicates that Georgia is vastly more disparate in terms of demographic make up, ethnicity, and growing at faster population rate. It's economy is growing only slightly slower, and your charts don't reflect that Georgia's population growth is predominantly a result of people moving back South in recent years. We've seen a rather large in flux of forced retirees seeking a relatively inexpensive place to live.

And I'm 100% certain "Minnesota Nice" actually means "Passive-Aggressive Douchebaggery." It was fun being called a hick by table servers.

_________________

Then that is what it is worth.

Because he is ideologically bound to the belief that regulations of business are an inherent good because of (IMAGINE BAD THINGS POSSIBLE).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Part of the reason why those of us who have worked for Pharms cannot disclose exact information is partially because there are confidentiality clauses written into contracts and at least for myself, these are stringently enforced. As much as I love you guys, I’d rather not go broke, sit in jail for a year and ruin my career.

That being said, as pointed out, Pharms does not make the most money by industry and the return on investment isn’t as good as some people would like to make out to be. They are also not as stable as you seem to think, you should google the patient cliff being faced by many of the companies due to discoveries made in the 90s (patents are usually 20 years and not 40 as suggested).

That loss in revenue to generic companies has to come from somewhere and unfortunately the new drugs will have to carry the losses of research and development when the old blockbusters no longer can. There’s a good read on blockbuster drugs here which shows growth and gives a bit more insight as to why they are not as profitable as they use to be. http://www.lek.com/sites/default/files/ ... _l.e.k.pdf

Probably not the best statistics, but here’s an article on an approximate loss of revenue from generics once the patent comes off. http://www.businessinsider.com/10-best- ... 012-6?op=1

Here’s a link to the regulatory costs for a new product registration at the TGA, I imagine the FDA would be similar. http://www.tga.gov.au/about/fees-130701 ... iption.htm Keep in mind you’ll need to apply for a new chemical, register your manufacturer, register the new drug (and any variations), etc. So it’s not just a single cost.

The thing that has pissed me off the most (mainly because it affects me) is the albuterol thing.

I have asthma. I control it with an albuterol inhaler. This medication has been generic for YEARS.. well, had been. Until the EPA or who the **** decided that CFCs can no longer be used as a propellant.

So what happens? They come out with all new inhalers with HFA propellant. That's brand name and NOT generic. So because they change the propellant(not the actual medication), my costs now triple with insurance. (From $10 for a generic inhaler to $30 for a brand name inhaler.)

Same medication, different propellant. 3 times the cost.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That’s the problem with generic companies, they are unwilling to spend the money on the research necessary to bring on a new product, even when they know all the active ingredients. Instead, they wait for the end of the patent and just use the research material which then becomes available through the freedom of information Act.

This is also why many companies are placing a greater emphasis on drug delivery method nowadays, as medical devices are relatively easier to register, but is just complicated enough that the generics can’t be bothered doing their own homework.

A good example is when the Australian government decided to replace the active ingredient pseudoephedrine with Phenylephrine (pseudo may be used as a component of the drug, ice). Except the dosages that they have allowed for phenylephrine is insufficient to achieve the same efficacy. Since both active ingredients are off patent, no branded company was willing to do the work just so generics could reap the reward and no generic companies were willing to pay for the clinicals required to apply for the correct dose. So what you have is a bunch of people taking the new drug and getting a placebo effect rather than an actualdecongestant… in the end it’s the consumers that suffer.

Personally, I'd pay $84k for something that works than $5 for something that has no effect. That being said there’s plenty of people taking vitamins who have no need for the stuff, so who am I to judge.

Yeah, our government here hates Sudafed. They make you feel like a criminal every time you have the sniffles now. Its such a pain in the *** to get it.

So what's the efficacy equivalent for Phenlyephryne as opposed to Psuedoephedrine?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

*Lowers hat, moves back into dark corner, puts on sunglasses*

The word on the street... >.>
is that in order to get the same effect from Phenlyephryne <.<
you would need approx 3 times the dose...

however since it's usually coupled with other drugs such as acetaminophen, its not good practice to take too many as it may cause liver damage...

Here's a link for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylephrine