Illinois set to buy drugs from Canada

What do you think about the world?
Kelgar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 591
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:01 pm
Location: Houston

Illinois set to buy drugs from Canada

Post by Kelgar »

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... om_canada/
Facing budget-breaking increases in prescription drug bills, the governor of Illinois took the first step yesterday toward purchasing lower-cost medications from Canada, a move that puts him in direct conflict with federal regulators and signals a dramatic escalation in the civil war over US drug prices. What began a decade ago with busloads of senior citizens trekking across the border in search of cheaper medicines has mushroomed into a nationwide rebellion. It has spread from small, nonprofit groups to the private sector, and now, to local and state officials who are defiantly ignoring warnings by the Bush administration and the pharmaceutical industry that drug reimportation is dangerous and illegal.

Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, said he has directed the Illinois Special Advocate to draft a plan for buying inexpensive medications in Canada for as many as 240,000 state employees and retirees.

"The status quo on prescription drugs is intolerable and unacceptable," Blagojevich said yesterday. This year, the state is spending $340 million on prescriptions for its work force, a 15 percent increase over last year.

"I am optimistic we will be able to save literally millions of dollars for the taxpayers and set a precedent other states will follow."

Although Illinois would become the first state to pursue Canadian drug purchases for its workers, Blagojevich joins a much larger trend. Even as Congress debates whether formally to legalize the practice, millions of Americans -- including horse breeders in New Jersey, a retirement village in Ohio, and the mayor of Springfield, Mass. -- have decided the financial savings are too large to pass up. Despite its claim that the practice is illegal, the FDA has generally looked the other way.

Depending on the drug, the discounts in Canada can be as much as 80 percent.
Wonder how long before the pharmaceutical industry can push legislation to legally outlaw the practice. Seeing as how the most corporate CEO friendly president in 100+ years is in power, I'd have to say not too long.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

I think it's shameful the prices pharmaceutical companies charge americans for their products. People shouldn't be paying $500-800 a month on their meds when it costs the company a few dollars to manufacture. Pharmaceutical company's profit margins are second only to banks and some software giants yet they still charge prices down there only rich and desperate people could ever afford because the people either know or think they will die if they don't get their meds.
User avatar
Animalor
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5902
Joined: July 8, 2002, 12:03 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Anirask
PSN ID: Anirask
Location: Canada

Post by Animalor »

warnings by the Bush administration and the pharmaceutical industry that drug reimportation is dangerous and illegal.
Ya know, cause the cdn government would allow dangerous drugs to be made available to it's people.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

I think a country more or less run by people that decide healthcare is corprate and which doctors you can and can't see are based on whatever tail your insurance company bangs on the weekend should have the right to get their pills wherever they want to balance out the cost of increasingly escalating healthcare bills..
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Deward
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1653
Joined: August 2, 2002, 11:59 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Deward »

Drugs are very expensive to develop. I don't know the exact costs but it can be in the tens of millions to get a drug through all the testing requirements required by the FDA. That being said, I believe that the drug companies are still bilking Americans out of a lot of money. They push high prices because in most cases the insurance companies pay the majority of the costs. It is good to see the states tryign to win back some of their sovereignty from the federal government. Agencies like the FDA have almost unlimited power with no electoral representation.
Deward
User avatar
Sionistic
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3092
Joined: September 20, 2002, 10:17 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Piscataway, NJ

Post by Sionistic »

How long does it take to get it by the FDA? A year? 2 years? Once done with the testing, can they reduce the price?
Chmee
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 942
Joined: July 7, 2002, 11:13 pm

Post by Chmee »

There was quite a bit of buzz about this issue (in general, not this specific case) about a month ago after a bill passed the House to allow re-importation of drugs to the U.S. in late July (not sure how it progressed in the Senate since then).

Some general background. Marginal costs for producing additional units of a given drug are generally quite low. However, costs for the intial research/testing etc. are generally quite high. Estimates for bringing a new major drug to market are usually in the 900 million - 1 billion range. Intellectual property laws extend a temporary monopoly to the creators of a new drug to let them recoup their research costs through a higher intial price. The problem comes when the companies then go to sell the new drug abroad. Canada and many of the European countries with national health care systems have refused to pay the higher price, saying if you want to sell in our market (with millions of potential customers) we will only pay a much lower price. Since the lower price is still over the marginal cost and some profit is better than none, the pharmaceutical companies typically go ahead with the deal. This basically allows the other countries to "free ride" while the higher prices in the U.S. cover the research costs. The bill currently being considered would allow reimportation of the drugs sold abroad (at lower prices) back into the U.S. Critics claim that this will destroy the pricing that is allowing the drug companies to recoup their research costs and ultimately will reduce the incentive to do research and hence the supply of new drugs.

Although I think there is the possibility that it will have a negative effect on research I think overall that allowing free trade, in this case reimportation is the best solution. Ultimately if the reimporation is having such a negative effect on their overall profits or their ability to recoup research costs then they can either try to renegotiate the deals or just not sell to countries if the price is too low.
User avatar
Fallanthas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1525
Joined: July 17, 2002, 1:11 pm

Post by Fallanthas »

Considering that no new research eventually means no new product, I have a very hard time believing that lower drug prices will hurt pharmecutical research.

And Kyou is right, the price of prescription (and now non-prescription, thanks dereg!) drugs in the US is criminal.
User avatar
Chidoro
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3428
Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:45 pm

Post by Chidoro »

I'm afraid that Chmee has pointed out a few difficulties when it comes to free trade of drugs, pharm companies in other countries can be subsidized by their governments when it comes to r&d. While certain diseases in America are afforded similar benefits, that's not the case for most drugs. It's certainly not the case for anticoagulants or pain killers or any number of big moving drugs that are typically directed towards the medicare crowd.

Pharm companies are big business in NJ, most have been having difficult times in the last five years or so. The problem is that the FDA is so easily corruptable. Huge gains can be made each time a specific drug passes through the FDA level reqs.

There, either, has to be outside assistance for r&d or people are going to be gouged. Companies only have a very small window to their exclusivity and it's that time they have to recoup it all. There is no reason people's medications should be costing a mortgage payment but it's expensive to r&d, it's expensive to market, and it's expensive to get doctors to use them.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

I almost bought the whole research and development thing until I saw that pharmaceutical companies make higher profits than almost any other corporation on the planet. Pharmaceutical companies spend less on R&D than they do on marketing. The CEOs of GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer made salaries last year (before stock options and bonuses) of 125 million+ USD. The CEO's of similar companies make salaries in the upper 8 digits.

A lot of the profits from Pharmaceutical companies do come from non-essential vanity/lifestyle drugs like Pfizer's Viagra, and things like Xoloft and Valium. However, it's just wrong to be charging seniors hundreds and hundreds of dollars to fill their prescription for their fucking heart medication or what have you. That's just criminal. I live in a town right up on the peace arch border to the US and the local pharmacies are packed with seniors and terminally ill people from the states who are filling their prescriptions for 10-20% the cost they would fill it for in the states. I don't see why their vanity drugs can't be used to subsidize their costs in other areas. They'd still be making more money than they could ever spend.

You guys need to seriously regulate your pharmaceutical industry down there because they are essentially stealing from you and killing you if you can't afford their enormous prices. Unfortunately they have such a massive lobby in DC and own so many politicians it will probably never happen. Eventually this will turn into a trade war with Canada and ultimately Canadians will end up on the short end of the stick on it, you'll still be paying 5-10 times more for your meds than you should be paying, and internet pharmacies in the EU will spring up to replace the ones from Canada.
User avatar
Chidoro
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3428
Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:45 pm

Post by Chidoro »

I've never looked into the salaries of the CEO's. I just know that until very recently, J & J was having trouble (now they are kicking tail). Merck and Bristol Meyers/Squibb were having trouble. Even Aventis, which came strong out of the gate, have been refocusing their efforts. Others, like Ranbaxy focus solely on generics and have little r&d of their own.

The reason the elderly are getting sacked is because medicare is downright awful with drug costs. Legislation could probably force companies to subsidize medicare expenses so that the drugs can get into the proper hands (if it's not already to some degree).

The FDA prevents the equity. They even have paid for advertising to tell people to call legislation and vote no to legal importation of drugs, citing that they think it's a bad idea because of sub-par QC.

What's sad is that the longer US citizens gets drugs from other countries, the more everyone who stays domestic pays.
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12479
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Post by Aslanna »

Sure, at the end of the day, that one pill cost 30 cents to manufacture or whatever. But as Chmee pointed out, bringing new drugs to the market today can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take many many years.

For example, Xigris:
Finding a treatment for severe sepsis has long perplexed the research community because of the complexity of the syndrome. Many companies have tried and failed to produce an effective treatment. But, after nearly 20 years researching and developing one of the most complex biotech compounds ever created, Lilly is now able to offer doctors a new treatment for severe sepsis patients at a high risk of death.


Quote source

20 years of research, development, and trials is not cheap. Granted, not every new drug developed will need that kind of resources thrown at it. But with less money companies will be less inclined to throw that sort of research into the next product if they don't think they'll make all their money back along with a profit, which is a major part of being in business. And to make that profit before the patents run out and people can piggyback on that research and sell knock-off drugs.

Not to mention all the other employees to pay. 50,000 employees is $4,000,000 a day and that's only if they made $10 a hour.

And another article Here:

Developing a new drug is an increasingly expensive and risky process. The average cost of bringing a drug to market is now approximately $800 million, and for every 5,000 compounds that are tested in the laboratory it's estimated that only one will end up as a marketed drug. Pharmaceutical firms spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research only because, if they get lucky, they will invent a blockbuster drug that will earn them billions of dollars in profits. Take away the prospect of a big payoff at the end of the 12 to 15 years of research that it takes to bring a new drug to market, and the incentive to develop new drugs is substantially diminished.

<...>


The $800 million cost of bringing a new drug to market is not a fact of nature but is largely due to the expense of running FDA-required clinical trials. Clinical trials do have value but the FDA does not weigh the benefits of additional clinical trials against the costs of drug delay, drug loss due to high costs making the production of some drugs unprofitable, and higher drug prices.

Having said that, I agree drug prices in the US are high and something needs to be done, especially for seniors who rely on a many of them. I don't think it's as easy as just importing it from another country which would just lead to them not selling to other countries if the loss was too great.

It's a complicated issue and until you're actually in the industry you can't begin to imagine all the things that are required. You would be surprised at what it takes to get that 30 cent pill out to you. Which is why it ended up costing you $5.

As for pharma executives salaries... If you bring your company profit you should be rewarded for it. There are a lot more industries out there where the top dogs receive salaries just as high if probably not more (although I haven't researched it myself).

Even a critical viewpoint on pharmaceutical companies and rising drug costs explains the difficulties:

This is unfair to pharmaceutical companies in some respects. First off, drug companies already give away or discount millions of dollars worth of drugs each year in charitable efforts. Secondly, drug companies need to fund massive R&D and regulatory compliance efforts to bring new drugs to market, and these new drugs, in the broader picture, benefit society at large by advancing medical technology. One might say the drug companies already shoulder a larger share of corporate citizenship than most manufacturers and must invest a ton of money in a drug before it ever lands in a pharmacy. Therefore, rising prices are justified.

But here's the thing: In the eyes of most people, they aren't justified and never will be. You can't get around the fact that drugs save lives and alleviate pain, unlike most other consumer products that -- let's face it -- we could all buy less of. The average consumer doesn't care about R&D and regulation and neither does the average politician. They just know that 82-year-old Grandma Jones down the street keeps the lights off all day in an attempt to save money so she can buy her heart medicine. Meanwhile, drug companies, despite having few new drugs in the pipeline, are still pulling in relatively high profit margins. In a year that saw brutal profit declines for many companies, Merck & Co. posted a 15% profit margin in 2001; Pfizer Inc. had a 24% profit margin; Novartis AG of Switzerland had a 22% profit margin.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

All those points are moot when you at that collosal profits pharmaceutical companies make along with the fact that across the board they spend more on marketing than they do on research and development.

And I really don't think it costs almost a billion dollars on average to bring a new drug to market. That's utterly ludicrous.
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12479
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Post by Aslanna »

kyoukan wrote:All those points are moot when you at that collosal profits pharmaceutical companies make along with the fact that across the board they spend more on marketing than they do on research and development.

And I really don't think it costs almost a billion dollars on average to bring a new drug to market. That's utterly ludicrous.
Well you're free to start up your own drug company and find out.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

HURR HURR that's certainly fucking logical. Three cheers for your asinine argument.
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12479
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Post by Aslanna »

It beats your whole argument which isn't apparently backed up by any facts other than your own opinion.
And I really don't think it costs almost a billion dollars on average to bring a new drug to market
So do a little research and prove me wrong. I quoted numerous sources and all you've given us is what you "think". Now there's a real basis for argument. Especially considering you don't seem to have a clue what is required to bring a new drug to market these days.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Because there has been discussions about pharmaceutical companies here before and I've already brought it up.

1. Are you really denying that pharmaceutical companies are reaping absolutely insane profits?

2. Do you really think it costs 800 million dollars to research and test a new drug?
Chmee
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 942
Joined: July 7, 2002, 11:13 pm

Post by Chmee »

2. Do you really think it costs 800 million dollars to research and test a new drug?
I have seen a few different estimates by the way, on the low side they are around 500 million, high side around 900 million to a billion.

They certainly seem to be spending a decent amount on R&D, or at least Pfizer is. They spent 5.17 billion last year alone on R&D (source: http://www.pfizer.com/are/investors_rep ... 02ar69.htm) I seem to remember development cycle on a new drug being in the 14 year range. Given that amount of time, depending on how many drugs they have in the pipeline at once those numbers don't seem to be impossible.
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by masteen »

A lot of that $800 million is in the form of clinical trials mandated by the FDA. From what I know about the FDA, they're complete bastards about these.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12479
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Post by Aslanna »

kyoukan wrote:Because there has been discussions about pharmaceutical companies here before and I've already brought it up.
In which case it would be easy to find instead of just saying you don't think something is true. I'm not saying such things don't exist, because I've read some of them out on the net, but it'd go a lot further towards supporting your opinion.
1. Are you really denying that pharmaceutical companies are reaping absolutely insane profits?
I don't think I've denied they are making large profits. I didn't post to defend drug companies in that regard. Drug prices are high and something needs to be done. I just don't think reimporting from other countries is the way to go about doing it.
2. Do you really think it costs 800 million dollars to research and test a new drug?
Do I think it costs that much for every drug developed? No. But as an average I believe it to be fairly close. From the example above, Lilly spent over a billion dollars and 18 years to come out with Xigris. Do I think every drug takes the same resources? I believe I've already said no. However I wouldn't say 500+ million is beyond the realm of reason.

How much do you think it costs? Or should cost?

I will say if you'd have brought this up a year ago I'd probably have agreed with you. In the interest of disclosure I will say I am now employed by one of those pharmaceutical companies. After seeing what sort of things are required to bring out a new drug 800 million wouldn't surprise me in the least.

And yes, they probably spend as much on advertising as they do on R&D and their executives make millions of dollars. But so do executives from other companies. The only difference being drugs for some (most) people aren't a luxury they are a matter of life and death. However, just lowering executives' salaries wouldn't have much impact on drug pricing.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
User avatar
Deward
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1653
Joined: August 2, 2002, 11:59 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Deward »

Getting through the FDA bullshit can take years. I have seen numerous news stories declaring an awesome new drug but then they say that it won't be available for 5-10 years because of the testing that is required by the government. These same drugs only require a year or two of testing in most European countries. On top of that the tests required by the US government will kill any project that fails in even the tiniest amount. I can't give a specific example but a drug that has bad side effects in a small percentage of the population (less than 5%) will nto be allowed to be sold in the US.

I agree Kyou that these fuckers make way too much fucking money off the seniors of this company.
Deward
User avatar
Mplor
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 429
Joined: January 7, 2003, 4:54 am
Location: UK

Post by Mplor »

In the pharmaceutical industry, as in many others, profit and innovation are closely linked. When we finally implement price controls on drugs - and we will - we'll be making an ethical choice: some lives will be prolonged because drugs are cheaper, but other lives will be shortchanged because the next-gen drug they need is delayed or abandoned. Much depends on where we draw the line.

As for a reduction in FDA testing, I have one word for you: Thalidomide. In the 1950s and 60s, Thalidomide was approved in Europe and Canada to treat morning sickness. As it turns out, it had the nasty side-effect of grotesque deformity in children born to mothers who took the drug. Over 10,000 deformed babies were born before the drug was pulled.

American babies were spared this tragedy because the FDA had higher standards in their drug testing and upopularly delayed this "miracle drug." More than 5,000 Thalidomide Babies still survive and provide a graphic reminder of the reasons the FDA requires such exhaustive testing.

Mp
The Boney King of Nowhere.
User avatar
Deward
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1653
Joined: August 2, 2002, 11:59 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Deward »

Thalidomide is definitely a bad drug that should of been tested. But there are drugs in testing now that could help life threatening conditions like cancers. Those drugs are available in other countries years before they are available here. I agree with you though that drugs that are not for life threatening conditions should be tested more stringently.

My wife and I will be having kids soona nd I refuse to allow her to take any drug whther it has been tested or not. If I can avoid it I won't ever let her have ibuprofen. I think that a developing child is just too risky to chance taking a drug of any sort. I can't say how bad morning sickness is but I can't imagine needing a drug for it or risking the chance of taking it.

On a related note, how many people have given their newborns vaccinations? My wife and I probably won't because the vaccines use mercury as a preservative. While studies are mixed on their links to autism, it just isn't worth the risk in my opinion. I figure that if there is an outbreak of measles or some other disease, then we can get teh vaccinations then. Allowing a baby's immune system to develop a little is a lot safer I think.
Deward
User avatar
Tuberok
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 77
Joined: January 9, 2003, 11:43 pm

Post by Tuberok »

I think 87 Billion from the government would go a long ways towards making sure that anyone, no matter what age, who needs medicine and cannot afford it would be able to get it.
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

In the U.S., publicly traded corporations are required to file various finacial documents, which are in turn made public, with the SEC. This leads, in turn, to it being inconvenient to make up facts about "insane" profits, since it is so easy to go see what those profits really are.

Pfizer - Latest Annual - 9 billion net from 32 billion in revenues - but 5 billion of that 9 billion came from the one time sale of several consumer (non-pharma) division entities. Latest Quarterly - First 6 months in 2003 total profits of 1 Billion on 18 Billion in revenues.

R&D costs? So far in 2003 Pfizer has spent 3 Billion. Marketting? Hard to say. 6 Billion spent on sales, administration and marketting combined. If Marketting makes up at least half of that combined line item, then they spent as much on marketing as they did on R&D. Not really sure why that is relevant to anything, though. Is the suggestion that drug companies should stop marketing their products?

To help measure the "insanity" - I went to the manufacturing sector and picked out an industry leader to comapare.

General Motors. First 6 mnths in 2003. Total profits, 2.5 Billion on 97 Billion in revenues. Initially this means GM generates half the profits of Pfizer - until you subtract out the Interest payments on loans. For whatever historical reason, GM carries 250 Billion in loans and it subtracts the interest it pays on those loans (4 Billion for the first 6 months in 2003) from its profit calculation. Subtracting out the cost of its loans, GM has greater profits on the sale of it's products than does Pfizer.

A very quick scan of some other industry's leaders (Mircosoft, IBM, Verizon, Exxon, and ADM) shows their profits ranging anywher from 40% to 160% of Pfizer's on a Profit/Revenue basis. To me, that makes it fairly clear that Pfizer's profits are not "insane," but rather are in line with the profits made from other industries.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Aaeamdar wrote:Is the suggestion that drug companies should stop marketing their products?
Jesus God yes they should not only stop marketing their products but the government should outlaw advertisments for prescription drugs completely. You can't advertise prescription meds in Canada or Europe for a reason. It makes me sick every time I see a US ad for some anti-depressant or some other addicting pharmaceutical that costs 100's of dollars with some tagline like "ask your doctor what BrainSoften™®© can do for you!" and a bunch images of a man and woman on a mountaintop holding hands and smiling about their perfect lives.

They can't advertise liquor or cigarettes anymore but whatever fucking chemically addicting narcotic the multi multi billion dollar pharmeceutical corporations want to sell you as the latest miracle pill that will change your life is A-OK.

It's bad enough how shamelessly these corporations bribe doctors to get them to prescribe their medications.
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12479
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Post by Aslanna »

Because as we all know every American is so stupid that they buy everything they see advertised.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
Toshira
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 724
Joined: July 23, 2002, 7:49 pm
Location: White Flight Land, USA

Post by Toshira »

Aslanna wrote:Because as we all know every American is so stupid that they buy everything they see advertised.
I thought I had to :oops:
There is not enough disk space available to delete this file, please delete some files to free up disk space.
User avatar
Sylvus
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7033
Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mp72
Location: A², MI
Contact:

Post by Sylvus »

I completely agree with a ban on prescription advertising. Yes, it makes sense for the drug companies to target medical professionals with advertisements, but during commercial breaks at the Super Bowl is not the place for them.

There's currently some commercial out where some like 50 year-old-man is trying to throw a football through a tire hanging from a tree, and he can't do it. Then they imply that he took Valtrex or whatever the shit is called and then he makes it through the tire. WTF is that shit for? It improves your throwing accuracy? They can't say what a drug is for, yet they can tell you the side effects and to ask your doctor about it. It's totally pointless.

If you have an ailment, you should go to your doctor and find out what the ailment is, and then he should recommend something based on his medical expertise. You should avoid requesting something because you were watching TV and thought the girl advertising Mycoxadril was pretty hot.
Last edited by Sylvus on September 22, 2003, 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama

Go Blue!
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

It's bad enough how shamelessly these corporations bribe doctors to get them to prescribe their medications.
You mean the little toys and pens reps give to doctors during their sales pitches?
User avatar
Sylvus
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7033
Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mp72
Location: A², MI
Contact:

Post by Sylvus »

Aaeamdar wrote:
It's bad enough how shamelessly these corporations bribe doctors to get them to prescribe their medications.
You mean the little toys and pens reps give to doctors during their sales pitches?
My cousin is (or was until recently) a sales rep for Merck. His job was basically to drive around to different doctor's offices every day and talk to them about the products they sold. I think his particular drug was an anti-osteoperosis (or however it's spelled) drug marketed toward OBGYNs. Pretty much every day he'd either get some sort of place to bring food in for the whole office, or he'd take them out to a restaurant. He said he had the most insane expense report, all picked up by Merck. It's absolutely bribery, and I'm sure that it doesn't help drug prices from being horribly inflated.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama

Go Blue!
User avatar
Chidoro
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3428
Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:45 pm

Post by Chidoro »

Sylvus wrote: They can't say what a drug is for, yet they can tell you the side effects and to ask your doctor about it. It's totally pointless.
That's THE best part of the commercials.

This product may cause diziness, nausea, constipation, shortness of breath, heart palpatations, bloody stool, bloody urine, diabetes, chicken pox, aids, lepracy, polio, and bubonic plague

Thanks, I'll just deal with cat dander
Chmee
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 942
Joined: July 7, 2002, 11:13 pm

Post by Chmee »

Jesus God yes they should not only stop marketing their products but the government should outlaw advertisments for prescription drugs completely. You can't advertise prescription meds in Canada or Europe for a reason. It makes me sick every time I see a US ad for some anti-depressant or some other addicting pharmaceutical that costs 100's of dollars with some tagline like "ask your doctor what BrainSoften™®© can do for you!" and a bunch images of a man and woman on a mountaintop holding hands and smiling about their perfect lives.
I completely disagree. The drug being advertised may actually be of benefit to me. Maybe it won't. I don't see why the drug company should be restricted from letting people know about it though just because you don't like it. Let them advertise and I'll make my own decisions.
No nation was ever ruined by trade.

– Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

How can you make a decision on a product if you don't even know what it does? These ads are for people to watch them and see how happy the actors and go down to their doctor and say DOC I AM UNHAPPY AND I NEED OXYCONTIN TO CHANGE MY LIFE AROUND.

You're probably one of those people though.

And yeah, whatever the pharmaceutical salesmen give to doctors is a bribe. This includes "little toys and pens." Why do pharmaceuticals need salesmen? To get doctors to prescribe it more. Logically if someone needs the meds they will get a prescription for it, so I don't see the point of having sales reps to encourage a possibly medical unethical medical professional to over prescribe medication.
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

Why do they need a sales staff? Umm, because its the way Doctor's stay informed about new drugs, or about pricing changes or other programs on old ones. Most likely the idea of a wide array of choices in all area's of medicine is foriegn to you, since your homeland is under a single provider system, but here in the US the consumer still reigns supreme and we get to have a lot of say in our own treatment (less so if you are in an HMO, but even those provide you with a decent selection of treatment options). We have dozens of major research pharamacuetical companies here (the same ones providing you with your medicines) plus over a hundred smaller generic manufacturers. When it comes to physicians, an almost unlimited number of choices (not really, but practically so, since the choices are to numerous for the normal consumer to exhaust), each with their own treatment preferences.

An educated consumer is in a better possition to take part in his or her own medical decisions than an uneducated one. Certainly, if a consumer is relying exclusively on those ads, they are no better off than before, but if a consumer uses those adds as they should be - a source of notice of a new product or new use, and then uses other more detailed information available in the US to learn further about them, then they are in a much better possition to participate in their own healthcare. I think those adds serve a valuable purpose in that regard in my overall level of information on medical products of potential interest to me. It would be stupid policy to prohibit pharamceutical companies from providing that information.
Chmee
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 942
Joined: July 7, 2002, 11:13 pm

Post by Chmee »

Television commericals, radio spots, magazine ads are typically pretty limited in the information they convey about any product (and companies vary in how successfully they communicate that information). I would probably do what I would do for most products that I see an ad for that sparks my interest. I'd try to research it more. Check the internet, talk to people that might have used the product, or do as most of the drug ads suggest and talk to my doctor. Maybe a combination of these (or others). If Taco Bell has a new item on their menu I might decide to risk the $2-3 and buy it on the spur of the moment but for anything with a more significant impact on my life and pocketbook I usually try to put a little more thought and research into it. I doubt if I am alone in this.
No nation was ever ruined by trade.

– Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Aaeamdar wrote: Why do they need a sales staff? Umm, because its the way Doctor's stay informed about new drugs, or about pricing changes or other programs on old ones.
Doctors are required to do this on their own. If they don't keep up on their medical journals, which includes new product development, they are at risk of losing their liscense to practice medicine. If they need some salesman to tell them about new advances in the world of prescription drugs then you are going to wrong fucking doctor and there absolutely no argument to the contrary.
Aaeamdar wrote: Most likely the idea of a wide array of choices in all area's of medicine is foriegn to you, since your homeland is under a single provider system, but here in the US the consumer still reigns supreme and we get to have a lot of say in our own treatment (less so if you are in an HMO, but even those provide you with a decent selection of treatment options). We have dozens of major research pharamacuetical companies here (the same ones providing you with your medicines) plus over a hundred smaller generic manufacturers.
I'm not sure if you are just a fucking moron or if this was some kind of dig on Canada's _far superior_ health care system, but I am going to operate on the assumption that you're a fucking moron. As a Canadian I can go to any doctor I want to go to. I would say a large percentage of them are competent enough to prescribe for me appropriate medication without some uneducated pharmaceutical salesman telling him what he should be giving his patients. I realize that you are under some kind of fantasy where you live in a capitalist utopia and you have somehow confused choice and buying power with quality but that isn't really the case.
Aaeamdar wrote:An educated consumer is in a better possition to take part in his or her own medical decisions than an uneducated one.
I am more willing on letting my education end at how well recommended the doctor I'm going to is. Once I know he is a competent medical professional then I don't interfere with his ability to treat me himself without regurgitating a bunch of medical terminology I saw on ER and begging him to prescribe me pills that I saw an ad for on TV because the people looked so happy. I will never, ever be as remotely educated on medical science than a competent doctor would be so why the fuck would I bother second guessing one?
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by masteen »

It would really suck if all the doctors had to go by was the PDR and the FDA clinical trial results... :roll:

Also think how much easier it would be to recoup R&D costs without the advertising weasels sucking out $100 million+ annually.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

If they don't keep up on their medical journals, which includes new product development, they are at risk of losing their liscense to practice medicine.
This, like so many of the "facts" you spew, has no basis in reality. Doctors, like all professionals, have a limit as to what they can keep up with while still devoting the overwhelming amount of their working time to the treatmen of patients. It is an effcient to use visits from pharma reps in conjunction with the PDR and other convenient, but skim, references, for indications of new medications. As with consumer advertising, the rep visit is the beginning, not the end, of that knowledge gathering for the physician before (s)he actually prescribes a medication. The NEJM is another nice source, along with other professional journals, but it is neither as complete nor as timely in its reporting of advances as are rep visits. Furthermore, no professional journal discusses pricing plans and incentives that might ultimately make certain treatments more affordable or even avilable for some patients. Nor do they generally discuss changes in medicare reemburements for various drugs, again possibly making some treatments available. Your assessment of professionals keeping up "on their own" does little other than emphasize your ignorance of the matter generally.
I'm not sure if you are just a fucking moron or if this was some kind of dig on Canada's _far superior_ health care system, but I am going to operate on the assumption that you're a fucking moron.
I am definitely a fucking moron. You can tell because I am resorting to name calling rather than arguementation. I usually do that when I know I don't really have any knowledge on the topic I am discussing and am too lazy to take the time to gather that knowledge. My problem is that I like to have an opinion on everything, but that replying to so many threads leaves me with so little time to do research on wat I am about to post, or even really read with any attention to detail the posts to which I am replying. The result is that I post a lot and its almost always more vitriol than reason. Or at least I think that's me I'm talking about here. As I said, I am a fucking moron, so even this might be beyond me.
...begging him to prescribe me pills that I saw an ad for on TV because the people looked so happy.
I guess you missed the part where I said these comercials were the begining of knowledge for the consumer, not the end. I agree, it would be stupid to beg for meds you saw some actor pretending they were all happy about. Then again, this misunderstanding on your part probably had little to do with you not having read what I said, my being a moron and all.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Aaeamdar wrote: his, like so many of the "facts" you spew, has no basis in reality. Doctors, like all professionals, have a limit as to what they can keep up with while still devoting the overwhelming amount of their working time to the treatmen of patients.


So basically what you're saying is you don't care if a doctor gets his information about new medications from pharmaceutical corporation sales reps instead of accrediced medical journals? I'm just making sure that I'm entirely clear on what you are saying here because if you think that then I imagine that you are so goddam fucking clueless that I will pretty much stop talking to you about this topic right now. We can talk about cars or your new haircut or maybe your favorite TV show instead.
Aaeamdar wrote: I am definitely a fucking moron. You can tell because I am resorting to name calling rather than arguementation. I usually do that when I know I don't really have any knowledge on the topic I am discussing and am too lazy to take the time to gather that knowledge.
Hmm, is that anything like writing an entire paragraph about how I called you a terrible name instead of addressing the argument?

I mean, is that anything at all like that?
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

No. You seem to be unable to get passed the concept of mutliple sources of information.

The sales reps are the best source of information for pricing. The rep will be a very good source for information about regulatory requirements. The rep will be a good way to initially learn about a new drug (or more commonly a new indication on an old drug). But, obviously, a rep should not be the only source of that information. Doctors have many other important references - the most immidiate of which is the PDR. You need to remember that you, not me, are trying to restrict information sources. I never said the Reps should be the primary way Doctors keep up, but unlike you, I don't reject all their uses.

Same applies to the commercials. Consumer's would be stupid to rely on advertisements to decide their medications, but that does not mean that these comercials are harmful to consumers. Use the comercials as ONE source of information about new medications. Again, I think they have some use, you want to ban them. So I don't need to argue that these commercials are a fount of knowledge, just that they have some constructive information gathering uses. Since you want to restrict the dissimination of that information, you need to carry the burden that it is more harmful than good, and so far all you have come up with is "Big Pharma is evil."
Hmm, is that anything like writing an entire paragraph about how I called you a terrible name instead of addressing the argument?
Not really. There are all hosts of reasons to ignore certain "arguements," but in this case I did not even do that. The "greatness" of the Canadian healthcare system is not material to anything we are talking about here. Nor, is my being a "fucking moron," but I went ahead and addressed that whopper of a point you made by just conceding it. The primary contention that you are currently putting forth, however is that "drug marketting is bad for us all." (I guess you abandoned the "insane profits" track and the "drug research ain't all that much dough" track because, well, as always, they were easily dismissed once someone actually did a modicum of research to find out that nothing you said was based in fact). Since the gaping flaws in that reasoning is what I have been addressing the last several posts. If there is some arguement essential to your point that I have missed, please point it out and I'll be glad to comment.
User avatar
Sylvus
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7033
Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mp72
Location: A², MI
Contact:

Post by Sylvus »

Jesus Christ you come off as about the most pretentious asshole ever.
Aaeamdar wrote:Doctors, like all professionals, have a limit as to what they can keep up with while still devoting the overwhelming amount of their working time to the treatmen of patients. It is an effcient to use visits from pharma reps in conjunction with the PDR and other convenient, but skim, references, for indications of new medications.
I'm doing my best to decypher your rather cryptic use of English grammar, it must be difficult translating from your native Supergenius to a tongue that the rest of us can understand. Doctors - as well as accountants and other members of professions that require certification - are required to maintain a certain level of continuing professional education. CME in the case of a physician, not all of their time is spent dealing with patients.

Pharmaceutical salespeople have nothing like that to keep them up with what's going on, and are required to have absolutely no medical training. I know of at least one, and I'm sure he isn't the only one, who went to school for something completely unrelated to medicine who then went on to sell telecommunications equipment for Lucent before making the leap to selling drugs to doctors. Oh yeah, he did have a 2 week training period in there, I'm sure he was very knowledgeable of the materials that the company presented him with in order to SELL THEIR PRODUCT. They aren't presenting any nonbiased information, their sole purpose is to get doctors to prescribe more X.

Sure Pfizer might make this drug that someone is trying to get the doctor to push, without the doctor doing his own research that he is required to do in order to keep his license how will he know it's better than Merck's competing product. And do you honestly believe that pharmaceutical reps visit every doctor in the country touting the benefits of all the drugs on the market. The doctors absofuckinglutely keep up "on their own".
Aaeamdar wrote:I am definitely a fucking moron. You can tell because I am resorting to name calling rather than arguementation. I usually do that when I know I don't really have any knowledge on the topic I am discussing and am too lazy to take the time to gather that knowledge. My problem is that I like to have an opinion on everything, but that replying to so many threads leaves me with so little time to do research on wat I am about to post, or even really read with any attention to detail the posts to which I am replying. The result is that I post a lot and its almost always more vitriol than reason. Or at least I think that's me I'm talking about here. As I said, I am a fucking moron, so even this might be beyond me.
That whole section is cute, really. I love how your biting sarcasm is so much holier than a direct ad hominem attack or a succinct name-calling. Oh wait, it isn't! You're doing the same fucking thing, and providing no facts, just spewing your opinions as well. Please refer to my opening remark.

The one where I called you a pretentious asshole.
Aaeamdar wrote:I guess you missed the part where I said these comercials were the begining of knowledge for the consumer, not the end. I agree, it would be stupid to beg for meds you saw some actor pretending they were all happy about. Then again, this misunderstanding on your part probably had little to do with you not having read what I said, my being a moron and all.
Had you done your research, you might have found out that much of the medical community is split on whether direct to consumer advertising from pharmaceutical companies is a good or a bad thing. Most agree that it's a decent starting off point for education. Good work, you got that one right.

What would you say if I told you that the AMA has reported that some doctors complain that they must devote increasing amounts of time to dissuading patients from taking drugs that advertising has led them to believe are right for them? Not only does that waste the doctor's time, it also undermines their authority. One of the studies I've read in the last 30 minutes while reading up on this subject says that while 29% of the doctors surveyed felt positively about direct to consumer marketing, 46% felt negatively.

I'm sure you can't relate to the lowest common denominator in society, but I'll present you with another tidbit to chew on. Many people, when they see a product advertised on television, believe prescription medicines are harmless. I don't really have the desire to search for drugs that were legal and later recalled, I can think of Thalidomide (perhaps not in the US) and Fen-Phen (yes in the US) off the top of my head. Had either of those existed pre-1997 when the advertising guidelines for prescription drugs were eased there is a good chance you would have seen people scrambling to get to their doctors for a 'scrip. Perhaps even more people would have been hurt by them because they believed them to be safe.

In conclusion, take your fucking attitude and shove it up your ass. The issue that was taken was in the way that the advertisements are presented. The facts are these: not all doctors view DTC marketing as a good thing, most everyone agrees that they don't accurately describe the associated risks of a drug, and (in keeping with the main theme of this thread) they cost a lot of money. All the numbers I have seen are in the $100M range per big-name drug. That's just for direct-to-consumer advertising and discounting any other marketing that the gladhanders from the pharmaceutical companies do to the doctors. If the earlier reports of around $500M-$1B R+D moneys are correct, you're looking at 10-20% of that cost added back on to the drug, just so grandma can see a failed Miss America contestant running through a field. I'm sure she'd rather save that 10-20% that is coming out of her fixed income and just trust her doctor.

Of course, I could be wrong...
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama

Go Blue!
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

I love how your biting sarcasm is so much holier than a direct ad hominem attack or a succinct name-calling.
Umm, yeah, of course it is. Biting sarcasm makes people laugh. Right or wrong on the point, it is often funny. Name-calling is kind of pointless.
They aren't presenting any nonbiased information, their sole purpose is to get doctors to prescribe more X.
Wow. I had no idea. I hope all those doctors realize this information is biased as well. At anyrate, why is this at all relevant? You, like Kyuoken, can't seem to get passed the part where Doctors (like all professionals) have multiple sources of information and that they will use those sources appropriately and efficiently. I am, once again, not arguing that Doctors need to rely on reps for all their drug knowledge, but rather that reps are a useful part of the overall picture.
The doctors absofuckinglutely keep up "on their own".
Same point as before. Once you are able to understand what it means to use more than one source for all information, we might be able to continue this discussion in a more meaningful way.
The one where I called you a pretentious asshole.
You cut me to the bone.
Most agree that it's a decent starting off point for education. Good work, you got that one right.
You read Al Franken's newest book - "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them."? Great read. There is this one section where he discusses a WSJ opinion peice where the author used the reduction in Crime rate between 1992 and 2000 to indicate that Bush was great on crime and Clinton had let it all go to hell. It was hillarious. The author wrote this scathing piece on Clinton's crime record, but then cited references that showed nothing but a decrease in violent crimes all during Clinton's adminstration. There were other great parts of the book too. I highly recommend it (even conservatives, like me, will find it fun and informative). Hmm, where was I going with all this, seems a bit off topic. Oh well, I forget; maybe I'll remeber later.
User avatar
Vaemas
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 996
Joined: July 5, 2002, 6:23 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: BeaverButter
Location: High Ministry of Accountancy

Post by Vaemas »

Salesmen exist for one reason: to sell. How much they sell usually affects their monthly income. They can and will tell you whatever it takes to sell you whatever product they manage.

Plain and simple.

I can't address the R&D costs, but I do know that each drug submission to the FDA requires massive amounts of paperwork. I did an on-site Acrobat training for a pharmaceutical company in New Jersey two years ago and the base stat was over 900,000 pages of documentation per drug.
High Chancellor for Single Malt Scotches, Accounting Stuffs and Biffin Greeting.
/tell Biffin 'sup bro!
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

and what biting sarcasm it was.
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

/shrug. It was your boyfriend's description; not mine.
User avatar
Sylvus
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7033
Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mp72
Location: A², MI
Contact:

Post by Sylvus »

Aaeamdar wrote:Wow. I had no idea. I hope all those doctors realize this information is biased as well. At anyrate, why is this at all relevant? You, like Kyuoken, can't seem to get passed the part where Doctors (like all professionals) have multiple sources of information and that they will use those sources appropriately and efficiently. I am, once again, not arguing that Doctors need to rely on reps for all their drug knowledge, but rather that reps are a useful part of the overall picture.
It's completely relevant because the motivating factor behind this whole thread is money and its relation to pharmaceuticals. The state of Illinios found it so important that they are basically disobeying federal mandates. The whole discussion got onto (arguably) superfluous advertising and bribery of doctors by sales reps. Two avenues which, if removed where they aren't needed, could probably have a significant impact on reducing the prices of (arguably) overpriced medicines. I say arguably because that's what this is, a discussion and we're all supporting the side we believe in.

Nobody else has suggested that anyone should put their blinders on and only rely on any one source of information. In fact, you seem to have your blinders on more than anyone else here, ignoring most of everyone else's posts. That's fine. I allowed myself to believe that you might be capable of debate; I even went so far as to think that you believed yourself to be an intelligent person. My mistake. I don't really feel like wasting time thinking about anymore posts and doing research to support my points only to have them ignored, so please forgive me if I don't respond to you anymore in this thread.
Umm, yeah, of course it is. Biting sarcasm makes people laugh. Right or wrong on the point, it is often funny. Name-calling is kind of pointless.
You missed the point there too. I didn't say that either was a funnier means of delivering anything, just that you're both doing essentially the same thing. You accused her of being stupid and ignoring the debate because she called you stupid... by calling her stupid and ignoring the debate. When you chastise someone for something while doing it yourself, that's hypocrisy. Perhaps that's what you were going for.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama

Go Blue!
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

Two avenues which, if removed where they aren't needed, could probably have a significant impact on reducing the prices of (arguably) overpriced medicines.
This presumes that the net effect of the Reps is to increase the price. You, and others, are looking only at the costs of the marketting efforts, and not the benefits. Presumably, the Pharmas feel that both their DTCs and Reps increase overall profitability. Since these marketing strategies definitely cost substantial amount of money, they must, presumably, substantially increase the consumption. Given the economics of these drugs (very high R&D/regulatory expenses, very low production costs), the marginal profits on each sale are extraordinary. (The overall profits, as seen before, are not, due to the large sunk costs of R&D and regulatory compliance).

So, you are seeing a large cost of marketing, but are ignoring whatever benefits are produced. Obviously, if marketing results in a substantial increase in consumption, the prices needed to be charged for each unit decrease. I'll leave it at that for now, on the assumption that you undrstand the logic behind it. Feel free to ask for clarification if you need it, and I'll explain it in greater detail.
I even went so far as to think that you believed yourself to be an intelligent person.
This seems odd considering I already conceded the point that I am a fucking moron. Try to keep up. Even a fucking moron like me would not have made such an error.
I don't really feel like wasting time thinking about anymore posts and doing research to support my points only to have them ignored
Ahh. I understand. I mistook your ranting about my being a pompous ass as some mindless name-calling. I had not realized you had intended it as a point of debate. It is an exciting subject, but I think if we started discussing it, people would assume we were derailing the thread. I thnk you have a lot more to contribute on point here, so maybe you should start a new thread on that subject if it interests you as much as it does me.
so please forgive me if I don't respond to you anymore in this thread.
No need to beg my pardon. Your hasty exit from this thread is what I would anticipate. Continuing it beyond your ranting about my use of grammer and pompossity would actually require you to either 1. research or 2. make shit up. Maybe you can get some help on point 2 from Kyouken. She's quite the expert.
User avatar
Fallanthas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1525
Joined: July 17, 2002, 1:11 pm

Post by Fallanthas »

Dar,


Salesmen are not a good source of information. You know this. The only pertinent information you are ever going to get out of a salesman is "Hey, my company is marketing drug X targetted at market Y". That's it. You may as well end the conversation at that point. Anything that follows is the bullshit from page three of the laminated 3"x5" card deck the rep was handed when he was given the sales route.


Am I the only one that thinks the pharmacist and not the doctor should be deciding on a specific drug? Half the time I am going to tell my pharmacist to sub in a generic anyway.
User avatar
Chidoro
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3428
Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:45 pm

Post by Chidoro »

Couple of things

Doctors don't consider pharmaceutical company sales reps as sources for information. The literature and actions of the sales force is to schmooze the people who can prescribe their meds. Studies, publications, and conferences are far more likely to be sources.

Advertising to the public doesn't really effect the cost of the drugs we're talking about. Print and media advertising is typically done for specific products that are about to come off patent and no other time. It's solely to keep people buying their product once a cheaper generic version is available. Just because there are a ton of Celebrex ads doesn't mean Epoetin or Heparin are going to go up in price.
Post Reply