WHAT? You Worried About Your Meds Costs? Hell -- YOU'RE Paying Drug Companies' R&D Costs!

Some say the big drug firms "allow" federal and university LABS to
develop the new drugs, then the companies step in and license the drugs
and sell 'em to U.S. citizens for VAST PROFITS, which pay for
advertising and obscene CEO salaries and bonuses! And of course most
of the advertisements intimate that non-generic is BEST.

TRANSLATION: You, the "customer," PAY for the R&D so pharmaceutical
multinationals can SOAK YOU for your medications. Nice work if you can
get it, eh?

------------

"Ensuring Fairness in Prescription Drug Prices"

Letters To The Editor
The Washington Post
Monday, November 13, 2006; A20

The Nov. 2 editorial "An Election on Drugs" overlooked one salient
fact. Most of the money spent on developing new drugs comes from public
funds via the National Institutes of Health and universities. In fact,
according to an analysis by health services professor Alan Sager, the
big drug companies spent only 11 percent of their budget on research
and development in 1999. This compares with 16 percent profit.

More important, they spent 31 percent on marketing and administration.
This marketing is principally aimed at getting us to use expensive
drugs in situations where cheaper drugs would suffice. It includes not
only the odious ads bombarding us on television and radio and in
magazines and newspapers but also the thousands of ill-educated drug
"pushers" who flood doctors' offices with misinformation.

It also includes payments to physicians both direct (incentives to
prescribe very expensive drugs) and indirect (meals and vacations at
resorts under the guise of conferences and education). All of this is
not only unnecessary but actually harmful. Drug prices could be reduced
by one-third without affecting research in the slightest.

LEONARD S. CHARLAP
Princeton, N.J.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111200718.html

went to the doctor on a Thursday, drug rep day,

both sides were filled with reps, male and female, maybe 15 of them, $1000
suits, raspberries, laptops, boxes of goodies,

the stuff you see all over the pace, pens,calendars, mouse pads,pamphlets,
etc.

and it occurred to me that is not enough to persuade any
doctor to prescribe anything


I wonder if they had envelopes full of cash or vacation tickets
or gift certificates and lists of who prescribed what

the typical republicon business method, bribery,corruption,
theft

"clitteigh" wrote in message
ups.com...
Some say the big drug firms "allow" federal and university LABS to
develop the new drugs, then the companies step in and license the drugs
and sell 'em to U.S. citizens for VAST PROFITS, which pay for
advertising and obscene CEO salaries and bonuses! And of course most
of the advertisements intimate that non-generic is BEST.

TRANSLATION: You, the "customer," PAY for the R&D so pharmaceutical
multinationals can SOAK YOU for your medications. Nice work if you can
get it, eh?

------------

"Ensuring Fairness in Prescription Drug Prices"

Letters To The Editor
The Washington Post
Monday, November 13, 2006; A20

The Nov. 2 editorial "An Election on Drugs" overlooked one salient
fact. Most of the money spent on developing new drugs comes from public
funds via the National Institutes of Health and universities. In fact,
according to an analysis by health services professor Alan Sager, the
big drug companies spent only 11 percent of their budget on research
and development in 1999. This compares with 16 percent profit.

More important, they spent 31 percent on marketing and administration.
This marketing is principally aimed at getting us to use expensive
drugs in situations where cheaper drugs would suffice. It includes not
only the odious ads bombarding us on television and radio and in
magazines and newspapers but also the thousands of ill-educated drug
"pushers" who flood doctors' offices with misinformation.

It also includes payments to physicians both direct (incentives to
prescribe very expensive drugs) and indirect (meals and vacations at
resorts under the guise of conferences and education). All of this is
not only unnecessary but actually harmful. Drug prices could be reduced
by one-third without affecting research in the slightest.

LEONARD S. CHARLAP
Princeton, N.J.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111200718.html