This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 05ce6f9ea3

MS drug Copaxone costs millions per gallon

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/o ... er-gallon/

THX1138 wrote:MS drug Copaxone costs millions per gallon

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/o ... er-gallon/

I have done some mathematics on the cost of Copaxone. This is how it breaks down:

1,000 mg/20 mg injection dosage = 50 doses per gram

$4,600/30 doses = $153.33 per dose

50 doses x $153.33 = $7,666.50 for 1 gram of medicine.

$7,666.50 x 28 (grams in an ounce) = $214,662 for 1 ounce of this medication.

$214,662 x 128 (ounces in a gallon) = $27,476,736 per gallon.

This article illustrates the problem many people have with the US system of weights and measures. They have confused ounces of weight with ounces of volume in the conversion of grams to gallons. To convert between weight and volume one must use the density of the substance under question as density has units of g/mL. Their figure for cost/gallon is therefore invalid. At best, with the information given, one could calculate cost/pound, etc.

How can a company sell its products if it doesn't market them?

In 2017, restaurants spent $5.875 billion on advertising in the U.S., according to Kantar Media. McDonald's is the brand that spends the most on ads, racking up $963 million in ad spend last year, up 8.6% from the year before. McDonald's shells out roughly $2 billion annually on advertising media around the globe

Products don't sell themselves no matter how good (or bad) they are...

just guessing but shouldn't that be 1,000 mg per 20 ml?

ElliotB wrote:How can a company sell its products if it doesn't market them?

In 2017, restaurants spent $5.875 billion on advertising in the U.S., according to Kantar Media. McDonald's is the brand that spends the most on ads, racking up $963 million in ad spend last year, up 8.6% from the year before. McDonald's shells out roughly $2 billion annually on advertising media around the globe

Products don't sell themselves no matter how good (or bad) they are...

Prescribed drugs aren't a product to be sold on the "market". Anyone can sell a carrot but only authorized medical professional can prescribe and pharmacists "sell" medications. In fact, medicine operates as a monopoly. The FDA controls what substances can be prescribed and only MDs can prescribe it. One of the outrages of the American medical system is that it wants to operate as a business. (Only in the US are drugs advertised as far as I know.) Only 7% of Big Pharma's budget goes to research. Most of the research comes from taxpayer supported agencies from which private interests profit. I don't know why Americans put up with this scam.

Best regards, Vesta

I think it depends on your definition of advertising. I don't think i have ever seen a tv ad for copaxone. I'm sure it was once advertised at least to Drs. I'm on ocrevus, asked the dr about it and he agreed to it. But i found it online, not direct advertising.

Every company is a business and Not a charity. As such they are out to make as large a profit a possible. From a research standpoint if I'm not making enough profit i have no money to research. Research is what gets me new product, product is what makes me profit and profit let's me research. Take any of those 3 cards out of the deck and we're still getting treated with leaches to get rid of our bag humors.

vesta wrote:

ElliotB wrote:How can a company sell its products if it doesn't market them?

In 2017, restaurants spent $5.875 billion on advertising in the U.S., according to Kantar Media. McDonald's is the brand that spends the most on ads, racking up $963 million in ad spend last year, up 8.6% from the year before. McDonald's shells out roughly $2 billion annually on advertising media around the globe

Products don't sell themselves no matter how good (or bad) they are...

Prescribed drugs aren't a product to be sold on the "market". Anyone can sell a carrot but only authorized medical professional can prescribe and pharmacists "sell" medications. In fact, medicine operates as a monopoly. The FDA controls what substances can be prescribed and only MDs can prescribe it. One of the outrages of the American medical system is that it wants to operate as a business. (Only in the US are drugs advertised as far as I know.) Only 7% of Big Pharma's budget goes to research. Most of the research comes from taxpayer supported agencies from which private interests profit. I don't know why Americans put up with this scam.

Best regards, Vesta

And drug companies have a large sales force, consisting of drug reps and doctors.

NHE wrote:

THX1138 wrote:MS drug Copaxone costs millions per gallon

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/o ... er-gallon/

I have done some mathematics on the cost of Copaxone. This is how it breaks down:

1,000 mg/20 mg injection dosage = 50 doses per gram

$4,600/30 doses = $153.33 per dose

50 doses x $153.33 = $7,666.50 for 1 gram of medicine.

$7,666.50 x 28 (grams in an ounce) = $214,662 for 1 ounce of this medication.

$214,662 x 128 (ounces in a gallon) = $27,476,736 per gallon.

This article illustrates the problem many people have with the US system of weights and measures. They have confused ounces of weight with ounces of volume in the conversion of grams to gallons. To convert between weight and volume one must use the density of the substance under question as density has units of g/mL. Their figure for cost/gallon is therefore invalid. At best, with the information given, one could calculate cost/pound, etc.

They have confused ounces of weight with ounces of volume in the conversion of grams to gallons.

I think their point was that Copaxone is super, ultra, incredibly expensive.
The math did lead to the incorrect numerical figure however.

The drug price comes out more or less similar either way.
I am assuming that we don't know the density of Copaxone.
1 gallon = 128 fluid ounces
(Water) weighs 8.34 pounds per gallon
1 pound (weight) = 16 ounces (weight)

It seems to me like it would be:
1 gallon has 128 (fluid) ounces in it.
1 gallon (of water) weighs 8.34 pounds
8.34 pounds x 16 ounces = 133.44 ounces in weight
So I guess that would be a difference of 128 fluid ounces vs 133.44 ounces in weight (About 4% difference)

Conlusions:
1) The Copaxone is still crazy expensive.
2)The "standard" (or Imperial) system is a sorry excuse for a "system" and the metric system is the only way to go.

I wonder how much farther ahead society could be if it had not been subject to the inefficiency of the "standard" system.

Please correct me if my water example is incorrect.

Anunymouse wrote:I think it depends on your definition of advertising. I don't think i have ever seen a tv ad for copaxone. I'm sure it was once advertised at least to Drs. I'm on ocrevus, asked the dr about it and he agreed to it. But i found it online, not direct advertising.

Every company is a business and Not a charity. As such they are out to make as large a profit a possible. From a research standpoint if I'm not making enough profit i have no money to research. Research is what gets me new product, product is what makes me profit and profit let's me research. Take any of those 3 cards out of the deck and we're still getting treated with leaches to get rid of our bag humors.

Sorry, but that isn't true. The whole point of Marcia Angell's research on the drug companies is that they DON'T do or pay for the research. The National Institute of Health subsidies the bulk of the research presumably in the public interest, not profit interest. Increasingly Drug companies are making slight changes to old drugs and then relaunching them under another name to reap more profit with no added benefit to the public. Then there is the case of the common pinworm medication sold for less than $5 now marketed for nearly $400 in the US since presumably it might treat cancer. (Drs prescribe an over the counter drug or send people to another, more civilized country.)

It's time one give up that debased ideology that the only reason anything gets done is if a profit is to be made. Does one become a parent in order to harvest the children's organs and thereby make a profit? Isn't it possible that people study science out of love of knowledge, or the desire to aid the suffering. Karl Polyani pointed out that "laissez faire is planned". The public purse (Pentagon) created the Internet. Do scientists pop out of their mother's womb with algebraic equations in their heads? An entire society raises, educates a scientist and then subsidies his research and should share in the wealth thus created. Add to your equation government funding (the public purse) which pays for the research, not the profit made on the product. The public purse SHOULD gain but increasingly does not. John Kenneth Galbraith stated that private business does do a better job at innovation, but to pay, for instance the added benefit of government services etc, these same companies should be taxed. Except they do everything to avoid paying taxes while seeking govt protection of their patents etc. This is a philosophical issue, but MSers shouldn't be paying with their lives for a debased ideology and to protect private interests - Big Pharma, Neurologist lobby etc.

Best regards, Vesta

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782946/

Applications are evaluated by a peer group of researchers drawn from industry and academia. It is, therefore, important that applicants do not include proprietary information. The success rate for well-written SBIR grants is ~25-30%. More than the mere funding, SBIR-funded projects have earned the seal of approval from a panel of expert peer reviewers, which will facilitate further fund-raising efforts. Unlike private financiers who evaluate a business plan for its economic returns, NIH reviewers determine whether an SBIR grant application to NIH is significantly aligned with the agency's public health mission. However, like any other attempt by a biotech startup that seeks funds, an SBIR proposal should describe a sound and innovative approach to solving an unmet medical need, and applicants must prove that a committed R&D team that can successfully achieve its objectives is in place.

ElliotB wrote:How can a company sell its products if it doesn't market them?

In 2017, restaurants spent $5.875 billion on advertising in the U.S., according to Kantar Media. McDonald's is the brand that spends the most on ads, racking up $963 million in ad spend last year, up 8.6% from the year before. McDonald's shells out roughly $2 billion annually on advertising media around the globe

Products don't sell themselves no matter how good (or bad) they are...

In Europe we don't have commercials for prescription drugs, neither to children. This was the most shocking thing for me in the US: "ask your doctor if Xanax(put any psychiatric drug here) is the right drug for you". I don't know how pharma companies survive in Europe and the rest of the world. And yeah, prices are lower.

Business is business, and whether the product is hamburgers or drugs or the location is the US or Europe, the basic concept of how a business operates is no different. You can be assured that there is plenty of advertising go on in Europe, it it just in a different form than the US. Business cannot sell their products without marketing of some sort!

Here is but one example that I found with no effort from the all knowing internet:

Pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising in Europe

https://www.pharmafield.co.uk/features/ ... -in-Europe




Here is another:

Study: Europe's Digital Ad Spend Neared €42 Billion in 2016

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Study ... 16/1015923


Oh well!

Business MUST advertise, products simply don't sell themselves.

i always thought my lil slogan 'putting the 'harm' in pharmaceuticals was a good one not to say there aren't some good and necessary ones out there. but there is definitely a machine at work defining new 'illnesses' and helpfully coming up with expensive 'treatments' for lifelong 'clients'.

ElliotB wrote:Business is business, and whether the product is hamburgers or drugs or the location is the US or Europe, the basic concept of how a business operates is no different. You can be assured that there is plenty of advertising go on in Europe, it it just in a different form than the US. Business cannot sell their products without marketing of some sort!

Here is but one example that I found with no effort from the all knowing internet:

Pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising in Europe

https://www.pharmafield.co.uk/features/ ... -in-Europe




Here is another:

Study: Europe's Digital Ad Spend Neared €42 Billion in 2016

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Study ... 16/1015923


Oh well!

Business MUST advertise, products simply don't sell themselves.

Greetings.


Your second link reveals that the UK has the largest share of drug advertising in « Europe » and even so it is less than in the US. Thanks to Brexit Europe can get rid of this corrupt Anglo-American model or at least limit the bad influence of « business is business ». All of life is not « business ». Do you advocate poor people and refugees and slaves selling their kidneys to the highest bidder. (Big « market » now in the Near East/Africa and India). Do you advocate the business of prostitution. (Some societies see fit to outlaw prostitution even though that limits « laissez faire » and the free market.)

You will note in the following quote that « there are strict regulatory restrictions on using prescription only product names ». Fortunately, there is some resistance in Europe into turning health care over to the « market ».

Restrictions on DTCA in Europe
The growing emphasis on DTCA is most evident in the recent publication of the draft guidance from the European Commission (EC), which raised the prospect of allowing pharma companies to communicate information about their medicines for asthma, diabetes and AIDS directly to the general public. Although this pilot scheme was eventually cancelled, Article 88a of Directive 2004/27/EC allows the EU Commission to provide a proposal report on the benefits and risks of disseminating information through the Internet to the general public. This report is likely to take three years from the implementation date of Directive 2004/27/EC for completion.
Even with these recent changes, the UK is a long way behind the situation in the USA, where branded DTCA is allowed. In Europe, there are strict regulatory restrictions on using prescription-only product names directly or indirectly during any kind of patient awareness effort. DTCA has therefore been relegated to disease awareness campaigns, which are educational and non-promotional in nature.
At the same time, however, these regulations are prompting more responsible DTCA on the industry’s part. The recent controversies in the USA have led to the development of the PhRMA Guidelines for pharmaceutical advertising, which are set to further rationalise DTCA approaches worldwide.
The trends in the global pharmaceutical space and the recent developments with respect to DTCA in the USA (the world’s largest drug market) will be the key factors that determine the course of evolution of DTCA in Europe. However, European-style DTCA will never adopt the US-style branded approach.

Best regards, Vesta

Do you advocate poor people and refugees and slaves selling their kidneys to the highest bidder. (Big « market » now in the Near East/Africa and India).

I was not even aware that this was being done.

Do you advocate the business of prostitution.

This 'business' is legal all over the world.

And no, I am not a proponent of either of the above activities.


Ultimately my illness has taught me to mind my own business for the most part and what people do with their own bodies is their choice as long as it doesn't affect others directly. For example, I am against smoking yet I would never tell a smoker not to smoke (just not to smoke in front of or near me IF that person was in my home or car). In fact, because of advertising, most smokers are aware of the serious health issues yet continue to smoke anyway - what people do with their own bodies is their choice!

There is no simple answer to the advertising question and although the regulation of advertising makes sense to some, the bottom line is that, as I mentioned before, products don't sell themselves. Advertising is simply a form of communication.

And finally, advertising regulations in any market force businesses to find creative legal ways to get their advertising message across, as the case in countries that don't permit it. Interestingly, all drug ads here in the USA have 'disclaimers' about side effects, and in many cases the side effects are often worse than the disease the drug is intended to be used for - I often find myself scratching my head wondering why anyone would use drugs with such serious side effects. Again, I prefer to make my own decisions that I deem are beneficial for me, mind my own business about most other issues, and let others make their own decisions for themselves they they deem are beneficial for them even if I disagree. What people do with their own bodies is their choice.

So, IF 'big Pharma' found a cure to MS, wouldn't you want them to spread the word?