2138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 149 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

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 45 points 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 14 points 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 43 points 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.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Thank you, this is exactly my point.

[-] WYLD_STALLYNS@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

Most excellent fact checking 👍

[-] natecox@programming.dev 50 points 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.

[-] clausetrophobic@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 34 points 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 6 points 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 16 points 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.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 4 points 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.

[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Reading comprehension is tough I know. I indeed believe essential services including medical research should be government run.

But since that is not the case right now you can't expect companies to operate on a non profit basis. If stating obvious facts is simping then I guess you can call me a simp.

[-] Saxoboneless@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

...and the video game industry makes more money than any other entertainment industry. Yes, these things should cost more than just their production cost, but there is currently an obscene amount of money being made by the people at the top of these industries - y'know, the ones whose main role in making and distributing the product is just already being obscenely wealthy. And while I don't really care if AAA games are overpriced if they're only $60, I do care if life-saving meds are being held for ransom.

Do y'all need reminded that insulin, a life-or-death drug that's been around since the fucking 1920s, only costs at most $10 to make but currently retails for up to $300 a vial? It does not fucking matter whether or not this particular treatment should cost $13 or $90, the markup on any life saving drug being over 1,000% is blatant price gauging at the expense of human life, and the fact that the pharmaceutical industry does this all the time is common fucking knowledge. Anything approaching a defense of this shit either is in fact astroturfing or is so braindead as to call it a necessity that a publicly traded company demand the sick either choose debt or the grave.

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

That cost to develop was likely not borne by Pfizer in the first place.

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.

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Game DVDs are not lifesaving drugs.

[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year 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 9 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Sprokes@lemmy.ml 17 points 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 0 points 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

[-] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I don't think it takes 1.4k to move anything anywhere.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year 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

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
2138 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59038 readers
4107 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS