• deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      14
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • Rinox@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pfizer COVID vaccine wasn’t researched or developed by them. It was developed by the German BioNTech.

        Still, bringing it to market at the required volumes requires extreme amounts of capital, there’s a reason no one can enter the club.

      • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • clausetrophobic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        By that same logic: it costs a couple of cents to burn a dvd or to transfer a few gigabytes, yet games costs $60.

        All the commenter above you is saying is don’t mix up the cost to develop with the cost to mass produce,

        • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m going to be unreasonable because I don’t like the ethics behind Pharma companies.

          They should eat the loss; their research was healthily subsidised by the taxpayer

          • FMT99@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m personally of the opinion that all medical research should be tax funded. But given our current situation, if you tell these companies to ‘eat the loss’ they will simply stop producing new medicines.

            • gordon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh no, whatever will we do if old dudes can’t have 6 different types of boner pills?

              • FMT99@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s real easy to sit on the sidelines and spew hate. Not much of a life though.

              • Same@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Pharma companies spend a majority of their time trying to make new unique drugs, they just fail most of the time. The ones that succeed tend to be ones that are similar to ones that succeeded in the last, which is why you get multiple drugs in the same class, but it’s not all they do. For example, we’ve essentially cured some types of cystic fibrosis, and there’s an effective vaccine for malaria now - all developed in the last 10 years.

                I don’t want to pretend that the big pharma companies aren’t evil, but they do have incentives that align with improving human health.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh stop. The government should be running the pharaceutical industry then, not private companies.

              Stop simping for evil corporations that don’t give a shit about you.

    • Sprokes@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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
        1
        ·
        1 year 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

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.