Moreover, some of the new drugs being introduced at such large prices have only slight marginal improvements over the already pre-existing drugs. One example of this would be Zaltrap, a drug approved to treat colorectal cancer. Zaltrap was discovered by Regeneron, an emerging biopharmaceutical company, but sold by the French drug maker Sanofi. Yet it worked no better in clinical trials than Roche’s cancer drug called Avastin, which on average adds only 1.4 months to life expectancy for patients inflicted with advanced colorectal cancer. Sanofi priced Zaltrap at $11,000 a month, which is twice Avastin’s price. At any rate, there was resistance. Doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, which is one of the world’s leading cancer centers, …show more content…
The answer to this question is of course variable depending on many factors, such as drug type, material and use. However, a recent example may be used to understand the flexibility that these pharmaceutical companies truly possess. A drug called Pyrimethamine was released in 1953 by Burroughs Wellcome, a pharmaceutical company based in London. This drug was originally intended to fight malaria, after the microorganisms that cause the disease developed resistance to earlier treatments. In current times, it’s mostly used now to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection that can be life-threatening in people whose immune systems are suppressed by HIV/AIDS or cancer. In 2010, the company sold the U.S. rights to pyrimethamine (now marketed under the brand name of Daraprim) to another firm, CorePharma. By that time, the patent on the drug had long since expired, but because of the sheer difficulty, nobody bothered to make a generic, essentially making Daraprim a monopoly. CorePharma’s parent company, Impax Laboratories, then sold it to Turing Pharmaceuticals. Almost overnight, the company raised the price from $18 a pill to $750; approximately 42 times the original price. To contrast this, in Britain GlaxoSmithKline sells the drug for 66 cents a pill, and in India, it costs even …show more content…
Many of these drugs are invented not by the companies that currently sell them but by someone else. Then these companies act like big fish swallowing little fish. These larger companies either purchase many of the smaller firms outright or license promising drugs from them. These larger drug firms rarely perform research on medication other than adding slight variations to those already in their possession. These drugs with slight variations are then used to acquire new patents and maintain monopoly status over their specific markets. This means that many companies are increasing prices for their research that is used to develop these slightly-varied drugs. In essence, we are paying extra so that these companies can maintain their
While becoming a more reputable brand, IAMS does not want to have competition with another dog food brand since Zamzows is a well-known company in
Many businesses that achieve great success become greedy and want more. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Turing, have been overpricing life-saving
... (2013) IMS health study points to a declining cost curve for U.S. medicines in 2012 Retrieved from http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/ims/menuitem.d248e29c86589c9c30e81c033208c22a/?vgnextoid=8659cf4add48e310VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextchannel=437879d7f269e210VgnVCM10000071812ca2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default
Why do consumers purchase specific drugs for various ailments, sicknesses or diseases they might have? Why do physicians prescribe certain drugs over competitive drugs that may be available to the public? Why is it that most of us can easily name specific drugs that fit the many ailments of today’s society? On the surface the answer might be as simple as good TV advertising or radio commercials or even internet adds. The truth of matter is the major pharmaceutical manufacturers own the patents on these drugs and this gives them all of the marketing budget and muscle they need to promote the drug and control the pricing. The incentives for larger pharmaceutical companies are very enticing and as a result, they don’t mind spending the time in clinical trials and patent courts to get their drugs approved. Some will even get patents on the process by which the drug is manufactured, ensuring that no competitor can steal the drug or the process. This protects their large financial investment and nearly guarantees a large return for their investors. Many consumer rights groups claim this is nothing more than legalizing monopolies for the biggest manufacturers.
Why are the prices so high? Some critics of the drug companies argue that the larger firms are ripping off the American public, are dishonest and, in some cases, unsafe. On the other hand, there are health care workers such as doctors and their supporters who claim that research and testing for drugs costs money. This supposedly justifies their prices for their products. Also, as an argument to their side, they say that their practice is a benefit to the improvement to mankind. It is a life saving business, but are these prices justified? As one can see, this is a very important issue in medicine today. It affects everyone involved with medicine, which is much of the American public. It also affects the physicians and drug makers.
Threat of new entrants is relatively high. Companies forming alliances are potential rivals. Even if earlier such company was not considered to be a threat, after merging with some research and development company or forming alliance with another pharmaceutical company it would become a rival to Eli Lilly. The threat is however weakened by significant research and development costs necessary to successfully enter the business. Eli Lilly’s focus on a relatively narrow market of sedatives and antidepressants weakens the threat of new entrants, but other products that form lesser part of company’s sales such as insulin and others are exposed to high threat of new entrants. The need of obtaining certificates and licenses also weakens the threat of new entrants. Discussed above leads to the conclusion that threat of new entrants is medium.
Due to patents, Pfizer and other companies in the pharmaceutical industry are not always competing in a monopolist’s competition. When a business has a patent, they are the only manufacturer who can produce the product until the product expires, so it is clear that the firm can act as a monopoly while in control of the patent. As a monopolistic company, the company has market power, giving it the capability to adjust the market price of a good. The main goal for a monopolist and business owner is to maximize their profits, however, there are rules they have to abide by. Monopoly companies still have to keep up with the market demand curve.
Many patients discontinue with their drug treatments due to them being highly priced.1 Regulated drug price control may benefit the public but not so much for the economy. The revenues and profits that companies make are used mainly to advertise new drug treatments and fund clinical research. Pharmaceutical companies spend only 1.3% of their revenues on basic research.1 This make no sense that only a small portion is used for research while the rest is spent on marketing. Price controlling may reduce marketing and advertising on new drugs, which may in return produce low revenues and profits for the company. Then we ask ourselves, what matters most the people or
The rising cost of medications continues to be a debate amongst pharmaceutical company’s, health care providers and patients. The concern of overpriced medications has been an issue that the government has been more aware of recently, but they are not able to decide on how to take the proper precautions in resolving this issue. The cost of medications are significantly higher in the United States than in the rest of the world because the U. S. allows pharmaceutical companies to set their own price for their medications. The U.S. tried to step in before to get pharmaceutical companies to lower the price of their medications, but it ended up hurting the pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare system. Pharmaceutical companies were not able
With the United States being the only country allowing a free market to determine drug prices, it has the potential for some companies to take advantage of it. Other European countries such as Germany, Sweden, France, and the United Kingdom have set government regulations on the prices of drugs and expenditures (Gross, D. J., Ratner, J., Perez, J., & Glavin, S. L.,1994). This set regulation prevents companies from price gouging, and these regulations are also due to their universal prescription drug benefits.“ A recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce reviewed pricing in 11 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and found that, for patented drugs that were best sellers in the United States, the prices in other OECD countries were 18 to 67 percent less than U.S. prices, depending on the country.”(Sood, N., De Vries, H., Gutierrez, I., Lakdawalla, D., & Goldman, D., 2009). With the United States being the world’s leader is drug development, they are also the world’s leader in drug prices with their free market system (Gross, D. J., Ratner, J., Perez, J., & Glavin, S. L., 1994).
Higher and higher costs of R&D present significant obstacles for new companies. Increasingly higher capital investment is required at the beginning of the process to produce competitive drugs. Continuous investments into remaining competitive add on to the initial costs of development. In addition to scarce resources, time invested is also a major cost. To develop a product ready for sale it can take up to 15 years. Considering all this, less than one third of all the products that are produced and sold result in breaking even; even less generate profits.
Soon after obtaining the authority to sell Daraprim, Martin Shkreli, founder and CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, by more than 5,000 percent. This choice of the company caused an outcry in the public. This greed made him one of public’s number one enemy.
Specialty drug prices are high because the market for it allows such thing to happen. With specialty drugs targeting a condition that is very rare, it has a specific use. With the drug targeting such a specific thing, such as lung cancer, it must be included on insurers policies. This causes companies to make drugs for cancers that are already being treated with pre-existing drugs, flooding the market. “…there are seven drugs in human trials that target lung or and/or other cancers caused by an acquired genetic abnormality called the ALK rearrangement” which is caused by the fact “The Federal Medicare program, and most private insurers, must include new cancer drugs on formulary regardless of their price or the existence of cheaper alternatives”
Health insurance is becoming the focus in our lives as many individuals are struggling to balance health and cost. The high cost of insurance benefit those who can afford and for other, it is a difficult task to accomplish. I am grateful to have a job where I can have insurance for my family and self, I know some families who cannot afford health issuance and have to go through the worries to afford one. The high cost of health insurance benefits those who have money or can afford to buy the expensive drugs. It is sad to think that one can compensate money for the cost of health because the chances to survive an illness are low. My Question is what makes a drug expensive? the source of material or the time put into
Any expenditure of this magnitude is prone to large vested interests and prescription drug spending is no exception. A shift to pharmacare will require significant political will. There will be winners and losers. Current expenditure includes the product, as well as the staff required