http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...cheap-medicine
Wow.• Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle-*income countries such as Brazil and India.
• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a "patent pool", so they can be explored by other researchers.
• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.
• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.
I'm surprised that drug prices aren't already lower in poor countries. As long as the prices stay above production costs, that's just good business sense.
The patent pool thing sounds interesting but I suspect it will mostly receive discoveries that Glaxco couldn't profitably turn into drugs. Still, it's better than just sitting on a patent and not doing anything with it.
Until locals there create jobs buying your medicines and selling them at a huge profit in more developed countries (where this inflated price is still significantly cheaper). The resources most required to fight this sort of thing are those of the sort that make third world countries what they are. Then what?Originally Posted by Chris Nahr
Can they cut the prices of my meds too please? Insurance is trying to cut out paying for Oxygen as well :-(
Yes, just move to a developing country.
Frop Bog 2.0, now with Poison Darp Frops.
No kidding. I'd sure love not to be paying around 1k a month on meds. I guess I either need to move to the UK or move to Africa, to get a deal.
I would assume that the major hurdles to sharply differentiated drug pricing (i.e. much lower in poorer countries) includes:
1) The risk of gray/black-market sales of the drugs to wealthier countries
2) Political pressure from the wealthier countries (i.e. If you sell this drug for $25 to Brazil, why do you charge $100 in the US?)
3) Manufacturing costs. If a $100 drug costs $.05 to make, then yeah, it's not much of an issue. But perhaps the $100 drug costs $15 or even $40 to make.
That's not to say that such variable pricing is necessarily a bad idea or usually/always infeasible - I'm just pointing out some issues. If GlaxoSmithKline can overcome these hurdles and make their drugs more widely available, props to them.
The issue is that $100 drug may cost $.05 cents/pill to make, but the first pill cost $500 million to research. The potential issue with this is the perception in the US that the American consumers are paying R&D for the rest of the world.
Actually, what we're paying for is the marketing.
There are plenty of good reasons for marketing to physicians. There are no good reasons for direct to patient advertising -- other than making high quality television programs profitable.
Let's see if I can come up with any:
1) Potential patients who have not been visiting a physician because they didn't regard the condition as treatable.
2) Patients who have not been visiting a physician regularly and/or recently.
3) Patients who have been visiting a physician regularly and/or recently, but have not raised the issue of the condition in question.
4) Patients who have been visiting a physician regularly and/or recently, have raised the issue of the condition in question, but the physician was unfamiliar with or insufficiently familiar with the drug in question and so did not recommend it when in fact it would have been helpful.
There are probably other good reasons, too, but I think that's a reasonable start...
These are all the same issue and it has nothing to do with specific drug advertising and everything to do with people not properly discussing their issues with their doctor. A PSA about discussing any and all medical issues with your doctor would be as effective and not attempting to get people to self medicate with a drug that may not be appropriate for them.
This is totally an issue with the doctor, not the patient.4) Patients who have been visiting a physician regularly and/or recently, have raised the issue of the condition in question, but the physician was unfamiliar with or insufficiently familiar with the drug in question and so did not recommend it when in fact it would have been helpful.
Shouldn't physicians be choosing the drugs by keeping up with current research, on science, not because the hottie pharma girl brought them free lunch and a box of samples? I would think if they are doing their job right, marketing should have no effect on their treatments and the drug companies would stop wasting money on it.
The few doctors I've spoken to about advertising have said it skews patients views in the wrong direction rather than educating them.
Last edited by Quaro; 02-17-2009 at 12:19 PM.
You really believe this?
Some PSA that shows once a month that says "Check with your doctor sometimes." will be as effective as an ad that specifically tells certain patients that a drug that treats their specific problem is available and may help them?
Umm, if you *do* believe that, then I suggest you take a bunch of courses in, err, psychology, advertising & marketing, communications and the like. Or kindly refrain from posting in marketing related threads.
Yeah, 'cause every doctor is totally up to speed with every possible drug that treats pretty much any possible condition.
Plus, it would be really stupid if patients educated themselves and took a little responsibility for being aware of their own current and future health issues and took a little initiative in seeking correct treatments for them.
In other news - you should take zero interest in understanding the tax code and the segments relevant to you - your accountant will handle all of that. Ditto for the law and your attourney, oral hygiene and your dentist, and so on...
"There's a pill for that!" ;)
So you mean, Pharma companies should be marketing their drugs to the least informed consumers possible? Gotcha.
Edit: To put it another way, if don't know you have restless leg syndrome, then you don't need a pill for it.
"Doctor, when I sleep, my chest rises and falls ever so slightly? How can I fix it!?!?!?"
Last edited by Mordrak; 02-17-2009 at 12:32 PM.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but your post makes more sense if you aren't.
Edit: To put it another way, if didn't know you could treat erectile dysfunction, you might not bring it up with your doctor.
If you didn't think to ask your doctor about it, you didn't need it anyway.
*facepalm*
Look, that example is idiotic. The significant other will push the person to talk to their doctor about it.
Seriously, you really think people are going to viably self-diagnose from a thirty second commercial? What we should be promoting is developing a repertoire with a doctor where you notify your doctor in changes in your health over the course of your life so you develop a history. Your doctor should warn you about common problems and ask probing questions to try and get at anything he or she may have missed.
If your quality of life is so minimally impacted that you need a pharma ad to remind you that you have a problem, you probably don't need to get on yet another medication.
Marketing doesn't work on rational principle, but suggestion. Do we really want to dope people up en mass just because they've seen the ad fifty billion times?
Physicians, like everyone else, only have so much time available -- and not all of that is spent working, just as with any other job. It's better for everyone involved if they maximize the amount of time they spend seeing and treating patients and minimize the amount of time they spend studying.
Drug and medical device reps provide specific information -- up to and including the size and position of minuscule screws -- in a more convenient manner than an encyclopedia.
There's no defense for ads about erectile dysfunction, itchy ass crack syndrome, or "holy shit you are far too fat"-itis. Most of the people who are swayed by advertising then spend the majority of their visit with their doctor demanding that specific treatment, to the detriment of the care they receive.
Pre-Viagra, you talk to your doctor, he tells you there's nothing you can do about it (or offers whatever inferior and/or expensive pre-Viagra treatment there was) and you stop bugging him about it because he told you nothing could be done. If he remembers about it, maybe he tells you about Viagra when it becomes available, but maybe he forgets or you switch doctors and you miss out on the sweet enjoyment of a functioning penis.
Penis does not work is a pretty big item on your medical charts. I have a hard time believing a doctor would just forget to mention to his patient that they've got something for him now, especially if the drug was marketed to the doctor (which it would be).
It's fairly common in old people, no?
I think this is a downright evil and subversive move. It will have some positive consequences, but I think the long-term goal is to create the kind of pharmaceutical-addicted culture in poorer countries as in developed ones. Soon, doctors in Argentina will be diagnosing children with ritalin deficiencies too!
Which means, the doctor would be reminded everytime he has to look at an old shriveled dick during a physical, no?
This also doesn't mean that legitimate news stories for medical breakthroughs suddenly stops happening.
Maybe this changes when you get older, but my physicals never involve getting an erection.
Oh come on, stop being an idiot. If a patient is having trouble getting an erection and wants one, they'll go to their doctor to ask if there's anything they can do. If not being able to get an erection is a common problem among old people and the doctor gets a packet on a new drug that helps with erections, he can offer it to his older patients that want it.
It's pretty simple. Any newsworthy drugs will end up on the news, and with the great invention known as the internet, they can go online and talk with other people who can't get erections and exchange information given to them by their doctor.
All of which is superior to 30 second ad on USA Late Night. And you know what, by limiting medical coverage to news stories and publications, it'll create an incentive for pharma companies to actually do R&D on medications that'll actually make news. No one's going to miss out on a new cancer treatment just because they can't show a TV spot.
What people will miss out on is TV ads for medications that raise blood pressure, destroy the liver, increase your risk of heart attack, or you can't take when you're pregnant, but it'll turn your toe nails white!
Last edited by Mordrak; 02-17-2009 at 09:09 PM.
If you trust a doctor to be familiar with all the drugs on the market and be able to prescribe the right one, why don't you trust him to know enough to counsel you away from the wrong one when you don't need it or when another drug can accomplish what you need?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote