I thought this was really interesting. It makes sense; I can hardly watch TV anymore without seeing an ad for some drug or another. So what does it mean for how America handles the pharmaceutical industry?
---------------------------------
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZnWB_b33DySVzhz2Pv82zF1cBxA
Drug companies spend nearly double on marketing compared with research: study
2 days ago
OTTAWA - Drug companies spend almost twice as much on marketing and promoting their products than on research and development, says a new study.
In their analysis of data from two market research companies, Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexchin of Toronto's York University found that American drug companies spent US$57.5 billion on promotional activities in 2004.
By comparison, spending on industrial pharmaceutical research and development in the United States was $31.5 billion in the same year, according to a report by the National Science Foundation, which included public funding for industrial research.
The types of marketing included in the US$57.5 billion figure, compiled using data from market research companies IMS and CAM, included free samples, direct-to-consumer drug advertising, meetings between company representatives and doctors to promote products, e-mail promotions and direct mail, said the study.
The findings, published this week in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine, confirm "the public image of a marketing-driven industry," say the study authors.
It's not a surprising conclusion, says Steve Morgan, an expert on the economics of the pharmaceutical industry at the University of British Columbia.
"It's been known for a long time that manufacturers of prescription drugs spend more money on marketing than they do on research and development," says Morgan, who heads the program in pharmaceutical policy at the university's Centre for Health Services and Policy Research.
Still, the conclusions are alarming, says one of the authors.
"It is common knowledge that drug companies spend a lot on promotion," Joel Lexchin said in an interview.
"But even I didn't realize that the figure was as high as we estimate it is."
The pharma industry has for decades promoted itself as innovative and research-driven. Critics, however, contend that drug companies have acted based on market-driven profiteering.
The gulf in spending in 2004, the latest year for which figures were available, has been reported for previous periods, says Morgan.
"This goes back to commissions of inquiry that were held in Canada and the United States in the 1950s," he said.
...
-----------------------------
I often hear people say that pharma advertising should be banned like Joe Camel, because it has a negative impact on our society: doctors become pushers; people take pills because of ads instead of a well-informed professional opinion of a physician. I'm kind of on the fence about this, because I'm also a big free market believer.
As another issue to bring up to stimulate discussion, there's America paying the world's pill research tab. Once they have a drug developed, they have every right and need to try and recoup the cost of development and make a profit off their discovery. The thing is that the price of a new pill is so low that they sell it for basically whatever they think they can get in each local market. So America ends up paying a ton more. No easy solution to that one ...
Thoughts?
---------------------------------
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZnWB_b33DySVzhz2Pv82zF1cBxA
Drug companies spend nearly double on marketing compared with research: study
2 days ago
OTTAWA - Drug companies spend almost twice as much on marketing and promoting their products than on research and development, says a new study.
In their analysis of data from two market research companies, Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexchin of Toronto's York University found that American drug companies spent US$57.5 billion on promotional activities in 2004.
By comparison, spending on industrial pharmaceutical research and development in the United States was $31.5 billion in the same year, according to a report by the National Science Foundation, which included public funding for industrial research.
The types of marketing included in the US$57.5 billion figure, compiled using data from market research companies IMS and CAM, included free samples, direct-to-consumer drug advertising, meetings between company representatives and doctors to promote products, e-mail promotions and direct mail, said the study.
The findings, published this week in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine, confirm "the public image of a marketing-driven industry," say the study authors.
It's not a surprising conclusion, says Steve Morgan, an expert on the economics of the pharmaceutical industry at the University of British Columbia.
"It's been known for a long time that manufacturers of prescription drugs spend more money on marketing than they do on research and development," says Morgan, who heads the program in pharmaceutical policy at the university's Centre for Health Services and Policy Research.
Still, the conclusions are alarming, says one of the authors.
"It is common knowledge that drug companies spend a lot on promotion," Joel Lexchin said in an interview.
"But even I didn't realize that the figure was as high as we estimate it is."
The pharma industry has for decades promoted itself as innovative and research-driven. Critics, however, contend that drug companies have acted based on market-driven profiteering.
The gulf in spending in 2004, the latest year for which figures were available, has been reported for previous periods, says Morgan.
"This goes back to commissions of inquiry that were held in Canada and the United States in the 1950s," he said.
...
-----------------------------
I often hear people say that pharma advertising should be banned like Joe Camel, because it has a negative impact on our society: doctors become pushers; people take pills because of ads instead of a well-informed professional opinion of a physician. I'm kind of on the fence about this, because I'm also a big free market believer.
As another issue to bring up to stimulate discussion, there's America paying the world's pill research tab. Once they have a drug developed, they have every right and need to try and recoup the cost of development and make a profit off their discovery. The thing is that the price of a new pill is so low that they sell it for basically whatever they think they can get in each local market. So America ends up paying a ton more. No easy solution to that one ...
Thoughts?
