I, too, am outraged by the government action. Mr Mann is absolutely correct - right on the button. Every investor in any firm that owns a patent should complain to the government.
I own a significant amount of Pfizer so I should be biased against the government's action to negotiate a reduced price for Cipro. On the other hand, one of the main reasons for the excessive cost of healthcare in the US is not because we don't have socialized medicine but because US Drug companies with the collaboration of the FDA have conspired to suppress competition. Many drugs sell in this country for up to 10 times their selling price in Europe and other countries. Cipro is a case in point where it is manufactured overseas and sold there for a fraction of the US price.If it wasn't profitable to sell these drugs at reduced prices and make a profit then why are the drug companies selling in Europe? The FDA has steadfastly refused to let foreign made drugs into this country. The reasons given by the FDA are not patent violations but "inferior and unknown quality". This is BS. If we continue to suppress competition we will get socialized medicine forced on us.
>>The FDA has steadfastly refused to let foreign made drugs into this country. The reasons given by the FDA are not patent violations but "inferior and unknown quality".<<Sometimes it's patent violations... sometimes it's questionable quality. I see nothing wrong with the approach as an investor or a consumer>>This is BS.<<This is American capitalism at work in it full form; the free flow of capital .... with modest (sometimes strong) government intervention.>>If we continue to suppress competition we will get socialized medicine forced on us. <<Competition isn't being surprised in a global sense. This will right itself. American pharmaceutical margins will slide but the companies will align themselves more and more with firms doing gene research. New targets to sustain highest possible margins will focus on drugs that attach ailments of the more affluent; less global pressure. Wealthy are more likely to pay big bucks for pills to live another 10 years once they're 80. Re socialized medicine. See nothing wrong with it what so ever; and I'm heavy into BMY. For the betterment of society, if socialized medicine appears the most practical approach to ease the ills of the populace... so be it. A capitalist in a country with socialized medicine will simply allow his/her investments to flow where they get the best return for them... and pharmaceuticals will remain part of that mix 'cause they won't go away and they will make profits... just not as high as they do now. The war against pain takes causalities in the drug industry. And it's gonna' heat up in the next five to ten years significantly. Radical changes coming. But... probably still a good place to invest. The margins will still be high. They'll save a bundle cutting out lobbying. :-)
A prime example of why drugs cost more under American's form of capitalism; lawyers and lobbyists. Both necessary... but not to the extent we take it:http://biz.yahoo.com/apf/011112/bristol_myers_lobbying_1.html
Re socialized medicine. See nothing wrong with it what so ever; and I'm heavy into BMY. For the betterment of society, if socialized medicine appears the most practical approach to ease the ills of the populace... so be it. A capitalist in a country with socialized medicine will simply allow his/her investments to flow where they get the best return for them... and pharmaceuticals will remain part of that mix 'cause they won't go away and they will make profits... just not as high as they do now.>> If it is so great why are Canadians crossing the border to get care they can't in their home country because of government intervention. I see no place in the world where socialized medicine has reduced the cost or increased the availability of medical care. But then again you and I would probably not agree on a lot of things.
A prime example of why drugs cost more under American's form of capitalism; lawyers and lobbyists. Both necessary... but not to the extent we take it:At least we agree on this one. The drug lobbists are keeping out competition.
Bench275,I know you weren't serious when you stated that > and pharmaceuticals will remain part of the mix 'cause they won't go away < But; I know/think that some pharm. must have disapeared over time! *** My question is: Do you or others on this board remember what strong pharmacutical companies over the past 10 - 20 years have disapered, & why?* I am just looking for a number that haven't made it vs the ones that are alive today!***************** captbuddha - out!
Re socialized medicine. See nothing wrong with it what so ever; and I'm heavy into BMY. For the betterment of society, if socialized medicine appears the most practical approach to ease the ills of the populace... so be it. IMHO socialized medicine is as much a failure as privatized medicine. I lived in New Zealand when people were dropping dead because the budget for non-emergency and emergency coronary bypasses (PTCAs and CABGs) had been consummed by October. The paper, Otago Daily Times, during November and December kept a body count.Socialized medicine does nothing to shift the direction of health care away from critical care and towards preventative. The only effective means of doing this is through charging those who do not participate in adequate preventative care. This cant be done under socialized medicine. Of course, neither can it be done in the USA, where malpractice lawyers have lobbied fiercely against it.
I must say as a former FDAer and current regulatory affairs specialist in the Biz, I am dismayed with your portrayal of an FDA and Company collusion to keep other foreign drugs off the market. The FDA has approved a lot of drugs that are manufactured in whole or in part outside of the united states, these manufacturing facilities are inspected by FDA inspectors to ensure that the product is manufactured as it is supposed to be with appropriate components. There are a lot of good manufacturers outside of the states, there are also a lot of generic manufactures outside the states that would not pass an FDA inspection with respect to quality of the product or control over their process.With respect to the european market, the reason prices are so low there, is that the governments set the prices through the mechanism of socialized medicine. Companies do sell outside of the states because some money is better than no money, but the cash cow is and will continue to be the united states where without socialized medicine companies are free to charge what the market will bare. We are a rich country and have been willing to shell out a lot of money for new and brand name drugs. I am not saying that private companies do not collude with generic manufacture's, this has been shown to be true, often times big pharma companies will pay a generic company to stay off of the market.Hope this perspective helps, let me know if you have questions, am new to TMF but have read a lot of posts in other places that indicate that a lot of people do not understand the drug discovery, review and approval process and would like to provide some insight if that is wanted.
Hi Ghost and welcome to the FoolI want to take up your kind offer of advice regarding FDA approval process, specifically related to Cancer drug trials.I am a shareholder of Millennium Pharmaceuticals and they have one drug in phase II trials, MLN-341.My questions are raised as a result of a very interesting thread begun on the RuleBreaker strategies board by WCMinor.http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16473188In his first post he makes this assertion,I just read Tom Jacobs article on this year's Rule Breakers and had a couple of comments on MLNM. Tom mentions MLN-341 as a possible future blockbuster currently in phase 2 trials. My comment to any investor considering cancer trials is that if an anti-cancer drug is really good --remarkably more effective than existing treatments-- and destined for billion-dollar-a-year blockbuster status, you should expect FDA approval to come after phase 2, not 3. If its clinical results are ho-hum (and not likely to fuel that billion in sales) it is likely to have to complete phase 3.In the thread he dissects the wordings and conclusions of the MLNM press release over their results of the trials as being more PR than concrete evidence of a successful trial.Charly further added this:During their presentation at the JP Morgan conference last week Millenium announced that they will be initiating Phase 3 trials in multiple myeloma and multiple solid tumor pivotal trials in '02-'03. Solid tumor trials in conjunction w/ chemo of course.From Milleniums website, it appears that currently the solid tumor trials are in phase I. Thus, any pivotal trials starting in the near-term for those indications would be phase 2 and potential Fast Track applications at that time.So I am left a little confused and not sure where we stand, is it true that if the drug exhibits blockbuster potential the FDA can expedite approval after phase II? Secondly the fact that MLNM are preparing for phase III trials in June of this year is an indication that the size of the market if approved is not large enough to warrant the speedy FDA approval.Again according to WCMinor this accelerated process is used only rarely and in exceptional cases, an AIDS drug being mentioned as receiving FDA approval in a record 6 months.I would appreciate your input if you can find the time to look over this.RegardsCaesium
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |