politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Big Pharma doesn’t really do as much basic research as they claim. They do a fair bit but I’d guess it’s mostly universities funded by NIH (and other governments’) grants making the most important discoveries. Then philanthropists, investors, more government grants, etc. often fund the early stage clinical trials and the creation of the small company. Big Pharma does obviously invent a lot of medications in house but it seems like the more typical path is that they buy a small company in later stage trials and provide the marketing and manufacturing/distribution at scale.
Which is fine. They aren’t pure evil or good. The discoverer, university, people who took financial risk get paid. But there’s other ways for scientists, universities, and early investors to get their return (which usually funds the next round of research). Government “bounties” is one idea. Like, if you create a miracle cure, rich governments buy the IP rights for x amount and release all claims on the patents so it’s generic from the start. If done correctly, the savings to national healthcare systems (and the 17 systems the U.S. has duct taped together) would cover the bounty and then some. Big Pharma’s manufacturing and distribution would still be important in that system and they could focus on things without bounties.
Honestly, I’d like to see that anyway, especially for diseases that are sort of ignored by capitalism. It’s perfectly ok if the bounty system loses money curing things Big Pharma isn’t so interested in (like less famous third world diseases). It’s not like bombs and roads are profitable for governments.
Not sure that’s true. At least in my experience, a lot of our docs do research funded by pharmaceutical companies
The stats I've seen in the past indicate they spend more on marketing and lobbying than they do on R&D.
Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
I think you're both right. Companies do spend a lot of money on R&D, that's true. But it's not really the point.
Studies show that companies spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D, a lot more. That is the issue in a nutshell. These companies rake in billions and spend a fraction of that on R&D. The vast majority of their spending is on marketing (a lot of which is in the form of direct-to-consumer advertising - something only legal in the USA and New Zealand), executive compensation, and stock buybacks.
Big Pharma Spent More on Stock Buybacks and Dividends than R&D: A July report from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Reform found that 14 of the largest drug makers spent $57 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than R&D, between 2016 and 2020.
Overhead Advertising and Corporate Overhead Outweigh R&D: A 2019 study from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing (CSRxP) found Big Pharma spends more than twice as much on corporate overhead and advertising as it does on R&D.
Profits Over Patients: Drug makers used a windfall from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to boost profits for shareholders instead of investing in R&D. In fact, the increase in payouts to Wall Street and board members was 17 times larger than the increased investment in R&D that year.
Additionally, the R&D that they do is of limited value in many cases.
And those limited benefit drugs are the ones they are spending the most direct-to-consumer marketing dollars on so people will harass their doctors to prescribe the drug they just saw on TV rather than the equally effective drug the doctor was already giving them. Such advertising really needs to be illegal here as it is almost everywhere else and everyone other than the pharmaceutical companies seems to agree.
If we cut the pharmaceutical companies' marketing budgets, eliminate direct-to-consumer advertising, regulate and rein in executive compensation and stock buybacks, they will be able to spend just as much on R&D as they do now AND sell drugs in the USA as inexpensively as they do on the rest of the planet.