Discussion on:

Pfizer: Europe is 'undermining' drug innovation

I'd like to applaud everyone's effort, including Pfizer's, to take the long view in governance and policy... that a return to "enlightened" self-interest is the high road back to prosperity for all.

I can not speak for how it is done in Europe, but in the US a patent tends to be granted quickly but before clinical testing. The newer drugs take longer to complete safety studies and that reduces the time left remaining on the patent. To make up for that and to help pay for the R&D the drug manufacturers set a high price on their drugs.

What could help make new drugs cheaper is to start the patent protection when the drug is approved. This would help the drug manufacturers a longer time to recoup their R&D costs through the sales of the drug.

These are the companies raising their prices 20x and dishing out mega bonuses. They can't exploit Europe as they are doing in the US apparently.

Last year my meds cost $40 a month including drug prescription premiums. During these first three months of 2012, I've paid close to $600.00 for the same drugs. They can cry me a river.

Isn't R&D for pharma heavily subsidised with taxpayer money, grants from NIH? And, then the costs that they didn't pay for to begin with are 100% write-offs?

Somehow I just cannot feel sorry for them.. Stay strong, Europe. Do not give in to the jackals.

It would be interesting to hear what drugs you are taking. What are the brand names you are taking and what dosages? How much are you paying for each drug? Also what are "drug presciption premiums"? Did you mean prescription drug insurance premiums? If so, what are your monthly premiums. $200 per month is a lot of money for drugs even if you are self-pay.

I pay $20 a month to SilverScript for drug coverage. I will not tell you my drugs names, but I will tell you that one went from $6.30 in December 2011 tp $179.00 in January 2012. Another one went from 2.50 to 18.75. Another from 2.50 to 8.31, and another from 2.50 to 4.00. And, I have two more that I am not looking at the receipts to.

I need surgery to get off of the 179.00 drug which means possibly a thousand dollars in co-pay, or more. Either way, drugs or surgery, 2012 already looks bleak.

You may be truthful in your statements. However, you should understand that a considerable amount of what people post on the internet is incorrect, misleading, or just dishonest. Without further details your story about a price increase to $179 from $6.30 is not credible. I imagine there is much more to the story. It sounds like your deductible had been covered in December and now in January you have started paying down your deductible. Have you called your insurance company and discussed the issue with them?

Have you discussed it with your doctor? I have found in recent years that doctors have become much more aware of the costs of drugs they are prescribing and can be very helpful in finding low cost alternatives whether in different drugs or in creative ways of prescribing them.

Have you researched the cost of the drug on the internet?

While many of the compounds which become drugs are discovered with public support, the testing and trials are almost exclusively privately funded.

That said, when was the last time Pfizer brought a new drug to market, from invention on?

Seems like the pharmaceutical industry mostly pushes the risks off on venture capitalists, then buys the startup as trials near completion.

Sure, the VC of successful products are richly rewarded, but big pharma isn't actually taking the risk.

I used to work at writing grant applications to NIH. I've seen the numbers and I know how the taxes are figured. We are paying twice for the same product. Once in development and again at the cash register.

Thank God for venture capitalists. They take risks with their own money instead of mine as a taxpayer.

Your description of pharma "pushing risks off on venture capitalists" is a mischaracterization. VC's often risk their money on development. No drug company is "pushing this risk onto VCs".

If the VCs develop a viable drug they do not have the capital to get the FDA approvals and market the drug. So they sell out to a larger company who has the resources to get approval and market the drug.

Thankfully this system is delivering much needed drugs that improve the quality of life for millions of people.

Human life is above money as people are real and money is just a shared idea. We already pay for most of the medical research through our taxes so why should a small group of people get rich off it?

What good is the near cure for AIDS if the people suffering from it can't afford it.

These companies behaviours are unethical, what about the Hippocratic Oath?

Can you provide an example of unethical behavior or violation of the Hippocratic Oath?

So "Take Money Out of Medicine" means what? To have governments take over the industry and begin doing all the development?

Before anyone goes off screaming that the sky is falling, maybe someone ought to find out why drug companies are recording record-breaking profits. One also might like to look at their budgets and compare the expenses for a) manufacturing, b) research and development, and c) marketing (including the expenses occurred by lobbying firms and the amounts spent on industry "associations".

The drug companies, along with the insurance companies, are the ones who determine the value of human life these days. The answer seems to be that the most valuable humans are the stockholders.