Drug firms 'block' cheap medicine

[Renton 17628]

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

How would you like to fix the prices of drugs out of interest though HF, especially considering we're living in a global market?

 

Based on NICE appraisals, or the SMC.

 

Keep asking questions and not answering though Fop.

 

 

But NICE don't, and can't, fix the price of drugs? Rather they set the threshold at which drugs are deemed cost effective and then quantify individual drugs cost-effectiveness (NICE do a hell of a lot besides this mind).

 

If we lived in a closed market I could see how they could influence drug price but as we live in global economy I suspect their power is very limited. This isn't really my field though, ask Chez.

[Happy Face 29]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it.

 

I assumed you would

 

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

 

The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here?

 

Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy?

 

And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold.

 

Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit?

[Renton 17628]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it.

 

I assumed you would

 

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

 

The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here?

 

Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy?

 

And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold.

 

Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit?

 

Exactly. Bearing in mind the bolded, do you know how hopelessly naive the bit in italics sounds?

 

Yes, the last sentence maybe basically true although you can take out the emotive 'unscrupulous' adjective, the same is true of every profit-making company. The world is an unfair place but its not the fault of SMK etc.

[Happy Face 29]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it.

 

I assumed you would

 

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

 

The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here?

 

Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy?

 

And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold.

 

Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit?

 

Exactly. Bearing in mind the bolded, do you know how hopelessly naive the bit in italics sounds?

 

Yes, the last sentence maybe basically true although you can take out the emotive 'unscrupulous' adjective, the same is true of every profit-making company. The world is an unfair place but its not the fault of SMK etc.

 

Not sure how naive it could be when I make the oppsition point in the same post. Idealistic sure, but fully aware of the inevitability of it, I'd rather be an idealogue on the subject than actively support the exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy.

[Renton 17628]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it.

 

I assumed you would

 

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

 

The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here?

 

Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy?

 

And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold.

 

Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit?

 

Exactly. Bearing in mind the bolded, do you know how hopelessly naive the bit in italics sounds?

 

Yes, the last sentence maybe basically true although you can take out the emotive 'unscrupulous' adjective, the same is true of every profit-making company. The world is an unfair place but its not the fault of SMK etc.

 

Not sure how naive it could be when I make the oppsition point in the same post. Idealistic sure, but fully aware of the inevitability of it, I'd rather be an idealogue on the subject than actively support the exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy.

 

'Exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy'. You can replace the words drugs with food if you want to get really idealistic and talk about global poverty. It's easy to be idealistic, I went to 6th form too, it's going to solve fuck all though, that's the problem.

[ChezGiven 0]

HF your HIV vaccine isnt example of public funded research leading to private profits as........ wait for it........ there is no HIV vaccine. Hence nothing is being sold.

 

Also, NICE has limited the use of drugs that are more than 30k per QALY, which limits the price. HAS in France sets the price of the drug, Germans reference price and then the rest of the EU region follows suit.

 

Anyway, i'm with Renton, its pragmatism, not idealism thats required.

 

Here's a view on something which might give you food for thought. Us, Roche, Novartis and GSK spend so much on cancer research now, we keep coming up with thse new products which add months to the end of life for cancer patients. The pipelines are even more promising. If the rate at which we are gaining increments in survival through the development of new products (and it is vital that these are paid for to help drive the investments) continues at the current pace, then i will say this here and now, we are around 12 years away from what is effectively a cure for cancer as it will become a chronic condition like HIV.

 

Now, thats a prediction.

[Happy Face 29]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

 

He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable.

 

And you were having a pop, admit it.

 

I assumed you would

 

 

How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

 

The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here?

 

Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy?

 

And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold.

 

Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit?

 

Exactly. Bearing in mind the bolded, do you know how hopelessly naive the bit in italics sounds?

 

Yes, the last sentence maybe basically true although you can take out the emotive 'unscrupulous' adjective, the same is true of every profit-making company. The world is an unfair place but its not the fault of SMK etc.

 

Not sure how naive it could be when I make the oppsition point in the same post. Idealistic sure, but fully aware of the inevitability of it, I'd rather be an idealogue on the subject than actively support the exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy.

 

'Exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy'. You can replace the words drugs with food if you want to get really idealistic and talk about global poverty. It's easy to be idealistic, I went to 6th form too, it's going to solve fuck all though, that's the problem.

 

You oppose food aid too?

 

I suppose you're right. Fuck 'em eh? They're mostly brown anyway.

[Fop 1]

Drug companies might from time to time do evil things, but I just want to say Chez isn't evil.

He's just following orders.

 

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it.

 

Crucial point?

Crux of the issue in fact.

[Fop 1]

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it.

 

Crucial point?

 

This?

 

'Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?'

 

What does that even mean?

 

 

It means:

 

"Sometimes we see that Big Pharma tries to extend their own patent lifetimes with patents that are not novel," Mr Wessman told the BBC.

 

"We just sue them to get the patents invalidated when the patents are only there to delay us getting to market. And those court cases are running all over the world."

 

&

 

The big pharmaceutical companies deny just tweaking drugs to get new patents - and thus, new patent protection.

 

GlaxoSmithKline told the BBC that "product line extensions" were for the benefit of patients.

 

The company continually reviewed its products to improve them and the successor took time to be developed.

 

It has a string of drugs that are successors to products that had just gone out of patent protection:

 

* Anti-depression drug Paxil CR was launched in the US in 2002 (Paxil went generic in 2003)

* Anti-depression drug Wellbutrin XL was launched in 2003 (Wellbutrin went generic in 2004)

* Heart drug Coreg CR was launched in the US in 2007, the same year that Coreg went generic.

 

Amongst other things.

[Fop 1]

is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion.

 

Where did I ever say that?

[ChezGiven 0]

How you connect the question you pose to the response is anyones guess.

[Fop 1]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

To make it more profitable.

[Renton 17628]

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it.

 

Crucial point?

 

This?

 

'Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?'

 

What does that even mean?

 

 

It means:

 

"Sometimes we see that Big Pharma tries to extend their own patent lifetimes with patents that are not novel," Mr Wessman told the BBC.

 

"We just sue them to get the patents invalidated when the patents are only there to delay us getting to market. And those court cases are running all over the world."

 

&

 

The big pharmaceutical companies deny just tweaking drugs to get new patents - and thus, new patent protection.

 

GlaxoSmithKline told the BBC that "product line extensions" were for the benefit of patients.

 

The company continually reviewed its products to improve them and the successor took time to be developed.

 

It has a string of drugs that are successors to products that had just gone out of patent protection:

 

* Anti-depression drug Paxil CR was launched in the US in 2002 (Paxil went generic in 2003)

* Anti-depression drug Wellbutrin XL was launched in 2003 (Wellbutrin went generic in 2004)

* Heart drug Coreg CR was launched in the US in 2007, the same year that Coreg went generic.

 

Amongst other things.

 

I was supposed to extrapolate all that from 'Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick'? Wow.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Renton

[Renton 17628]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

To make it more profitable.

 

Or to make it more available, at least from my pov.

[Fop 1]

I can't find it. Care to be more specific?

The other recent health care thread, search back through my posts if you want too (I may charge you for the "service" though ).

 

Link or post number will suffice, tia.

£100 per link, paypal will do.

 

This basically sums Fop up these days. Theres a geuine pathos in everything he posts.

 

I'm just promoting efficiency through profit.

[Fop 1]

I'm not surprised there has been little investment in the AIDs vaccine by the private sector as it really is an object in futility; that's in my opinion before Fop starts. As for the rest, without wanting to be patronising HF it's a bit more complicated than that. I think the arguments have already been done though in the other thread.

 

And first the porn industry and now plumbers? Get some decent analogies.

 

No, that wasn't patronising at all.

 

 

And Fop gets stick for ignoring questions and harking back to old posts.

 

[Fop 1]

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

Condescending posts ahoy in this thread.

[manc-mag 1]

I can't find it. Care to be more specific?

The other recent health care thread, search back through my posts if you want too (I may charge you for the "service" though ).

 

Link or post number will suffice, tia.

£100 per link, paypal will do.

 

This basically sums Fop up these days. Theres a geuine pathos in everything he posts.

 

I'm just promoting efficiency through profit.

 

Nah, it's just pathos tbh. Simple as.

[Fop 1]

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

How would you like to fix the prices of drugs out of interest though HF, especially considering we're living in a global market?

 

Based on NICE appraisals, or the SMC.

 

Keep asking questions and not answering though Fop.

 

 

Argh I've spawned another, I'm too damn fertile for my own good.

[Renton 17628]

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

Condescending posts ahoy in this thread.

 

Wasn't intentional considering I admitted I was no expert myself, something you've yet to do about ANY topic.

[Fop 1]

Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?

 

 

Random.

 

Name those three drugs though since my question followed something you said and has a context.

 

Again flannel and won't address a crucial point. To be expected, but I had to illustrate it.

 

Crucial point?

 

This?

 

'Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick?'

 

What does that even mean?

 

 

It means:

 

"Sometimes we see that Big Pharma tries to extend their own patent lifetimes with patents that are not novel," Mr Wessman told the BBC.

 

"We just sue them to get the patents invalidated when the patents are only there to delay us getting to market. And those court cases are running all over the world."

 

&

 

The big pharmaceutical companies deny just tweaking drugs to get new patents - and thus, new patent protection.

 

GlaxoSmithKline told the BBC that "product line extensions" were for the benefit of patients.

 

The company continually reviewed its products to improve them and the successor took time to be developed.

 

It has a string of drugs that are successors to products that had just gone out of patent protection:

 

* Anti-depression drug Paxil CR was launched in the US in 2002 (Paxil went generic in 2003)

* Anti-depression drug Wellbutrin XL was launched in 2003 (Wellbutrin went generic in 2004)

* Heart drug Coreg CR was launched in the US in 2007, the same year that Coreg went generic.

 

Amongst other things.

 

I was supposed to extrapolate all that from 'Also out of interest are you admitting that 1300 patents on a single drug is effectively purely a marketing trick'? Wow.

 

 

If you understood the issue, yes you would.

[Fop 1]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

To make it more profitable.

 

Or to make it more available, at least from my pov.

 

To those with the money.

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.medaxial.com/downloads/higherhealthcarespend.pdf

 

Apologies withheld.

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course the UK has historically always had a strong pharmaceutical sector, especially in R&D, and in fact a strong base in medicine and the biological sciences in general. It literally is one of the few things we have left to be proud of imo, but how typical is it of the British though to have a pop at home-based success?

 

Who's had a pop?

 

Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

 

To make it more profitable.

 

Or to make it more available, at least from my pov.

 

To those with the money.

 

So the problem is income inequality then. Well done on getting there

[Fop 1]

Nah, it's just pathos tbh. Simple as.

 

It is repetition though. And I'm sorry to sound patronising, but what I mean is it really is complicated, you'd have to be a professional to understand all the issues (and I am also not a professional in health economics btw).

 

Condescending posts ahoy in this thread.

 

Wasn't intentional considering I admitted I was no expert myself, something you've yet to do about ANY topic.

 

I can't help knowing things.