• deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    178
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    While I’m sure there is a crazy markup, it’s important to note the cost to produce - as in manufacture - does not include the cost of drug discovery, which is extremely expensive and involves a good amount of risk over a long period of time.

    You can’t just compare the cost of discovering a new drug vs. cost of producing a generic without any research like that.

    • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      117
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      https://jacobin.com/2023/09/big-pharma-research-and-development-new-drugs-buybacks-biden-medicare-negotiation

      Last year, the three largest US-listed pharmaceutical companies by revenues, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck, spent a combined $39.6 billion on R&D. That is, admittedly, a lot of money. But less than Medicare is currently paying on just ten drugs

      While Big Pharma holds vast portfolios of existing patents for prescription drugs, the innovation pipeline for new drugs actually has very little to do with Big Pharma. In reality, public sources — especially the NIH — fund the basic research that makes scientific breakthroughs. Then small, boutique biotech and pharmaceutical firms take that publicly generated knowledge and do the final stages of research, like running clinical trials, that get the drugs to market. The share of small companies in the supply of new drugs is huge, and it’s still growing. Fully two-thirds of new drugs now come from these small companies, up from one-third twenty years ago. It is not the research labs of Pfizer that are developing new drugs.

      • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        I like Lemmy for exactly this - whenever someone incorrect makes a statement they’re factchecked.

        Thank you kind person for finding and sharing that source.

        • flawedFraction@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          OP didn’t make an incorrect statement though. What they stated was an important part of the equation. I think a lot of people don’t take that type of thing into account and they will read what this post says and assume that Pfizer should be charging $13, or maybe something pretty close like 15 or 20. Clearly 1400 is far far too high, 13 is too low. A reasonable price allows the manufacturer to be successful while not gouging consumers lies somewhere in between, but much much closer to the low end than the high. To me that’s really what the person you are responding to is giving evidence for.

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      R&D on drugs is insanely expensive, but the protections put in place with the pricing are also a bit absurd. Most drug companies will lock down the formula for a period of time and price the drug aggressively for a short time (like a few years) and then open the formula up to generics who buy it and sell the same damn thing for a fraction of the cost.

      For clarity I’m agreeing with you that the price is largely due to non-manufacturing costs and the article is misleading as a result, but I also wanted to say that the whole industry is a testament to capital over humanity.

    • clausetrophobic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Fuck off with the big pharma apologetics.

      Boo hoo the corporation got millions in taxpayer money to develop a vaccine and now they have to profit off of it. I feel so bad for them.

      This is subtle astroturfing.

      • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        Guess this comment of mine will also get deleted but here goes nothing.

        The article is about antiviral medicine, not a vaccine. So you are getting angry at the wrong thing.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Are we talking about the vaccine here? Sounds like a post-exposure drug to me

      • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Well here you go again when people with no scientific education pull up literature as a gotcha. Thanks for giving me flashbacks to the high times of the pandemic. Sorry for the harsh reply but its posts like this that just funnel into misinformation around this already heavily polarized topic.

        To explain, Paxlovid is not a vaccine, it is an actual medicine/treatment. So it was not funded by taxpayers as the article states. Unless there is some other info on how this specific medicine was also funded by taxpayers of course, I am not an expert on research funding. But the article only mentions vaccine research.

        That said, I also do not think its a fair price necessarily. But it is true one should not equate production price as a fair price as R&D of drugs have high costs, mostly also because a lot of drug programs fail, making all prior investment to them a loss.

    • Sprokes@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s just an excuse because many drugs are sold at prices much lower what they are sold in the US. They are not selling them at loss in other countries.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Definitely not at a loss to produce no, but maybe a loss overall.

        My bet is that the US subsidizes R&D by paying obscene amounts for the drugs and the EU and others just serve as extra income

        • Sprokes@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s what they make you believe. Why American still pay high prices for insulin? It doesn’t cost that much to produce. It just those companies are paying politicians to keep things in their advantages and give you those excuses.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes we can. It’s just doesn’t give a good faith assessment of the situation. And why would I want to do that if it’s counter to my rigid world view? sigh better add an /s