I just did some quick looking around and it appears that Xopenex HFA is priced about the same as the patented albuterol HFA inhalers (the average price appears to be around $30). Albuterol CFC inhalers run around $15 or less, sometimes much less.
So price doesn't appear to be an issue with the self-propelled inhalers, and that's probably why it's on formulary for DOD and VA. The plain liquid, packaged for use in nebulizers, is several times more expensive for Xopenex as compared to albuterol.
Interesting. I'm sorry it doesn't work as well for you. As I said, it has some big advantages in terms of side effects, but they may not be relevant for you. It's a chemically stripped-down version of albuterol and it does work a bit differently from albuterol.
Ed, need to think about that one - thanks for the reference. But not really sure it disproves my point - in an unregulated market like the US, charges are "what the market will bear" - thats fine, its Capitalism on Steroids.
But could not the same charge of lowered R and D because of someone else doing it better be laid against any industry? - a company/country will have dominance in a particular field if it spends the money on research and development, (or cheaper manufacturing technology...aka Chinese lathes and mills, a hot topic in this group) ) takes the risks
- and I will readily concede, the Yanks are MUCH better than the rest of the world on that.
Why do the US drug companies spend more money on advertising than on R and D? Has a drug company ever gone bust? Whats their return on invested capital? Is there a line between huge profits and people not being able to afford drugs, or is that just capitalism and we should meekly accept it?
Who does the costing? - is it accountants or lawyers - has it been independently verified? - could it be verified, or are the smoke and mirrors too thick to penetrate?
Woo - getting a headache, all this thinking - I could do a gloat about the vintage radio gear I picked up on Friday, but even though its beautifully handcrafted with lots of metal, I wont....
It is a selective free market. The drug companies charge what they please, and then have the might of the government to prevent anyone from producing "their" drug, citing "intelectual property rights" and any other BS their lawyers can dream up.
This is particurarly a rip-off of the taxpayer when the initial work was done by the CDC or other governmental agency, and siezed by the drug companies for their own profit. The tax payer pays again when the drugs are sold to them, or through a governmental program.
Its time to bust the "drug trust" and bring competition back if it is to operate as a free market.
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ............................... On Theory: Delight at having understood a very abstract and obscure system leads most people to believe in the truth of what it demonstrates.
G. C. Lichtenberg (1742-99), German physicist, philosopher. Aphorisms "Notebook J," aph. 77 (written 1765-99; tr. by R. J. Hollingdale, 1990).
Sure, the investment in R&D is the issue. The point I was making is that the source of the money for all of this R&D, by a large multiple, is coming from US consumers. That's irrefutable, Andrew. The profits are in the US, whether a company is based in the US or not, and whether it does its research in the US or not. The profitable market is the US, so much so that most European companies won't launch a product unless they're pretty sure they'll get US FDA approval.
Because the profits are the product of sales and margins, and you increase your sales through marketing, whether the product is drugs or doorknobs. If you want a large market share, you advertise.
It does you no good to have the world's greatest product if no one knows about it. BTW, most of the marketing cost in pharma is salespeople, not advertising.
Sure, they go bust all the time. In this age of takeovers, though, most of the weak ones get eaten up rather than shut down.
Not as great as you might think. I'd have to go look up the numbers, if you're that interested. It's a boom-and-bust business, so the averages have to be taken with a grain of salt.
That's a good question. In the US, there aren't many people who can't get drugs, except those who choose to stay out of the system. We have welfare for the poor (Medicaid), federal pharma coverage for the elderly (Medicare Part D), and state-run discount programs for the elderly. Most big pharma companies also have quiet programs for giving drugs for free or nearly free to people who really can't pay. They make doctors aware of these programs but they don't promote them to the general public, for obvious reasons.
The big debate going on now in the US is not about single-payer, government-sponsored medical/pharmaceutical care. It's about government subsidy for drugs at non-negotiated prices, essentially paying the drug companies whatever they want to charge. That's the program we have now, initiated by Bush in one of the biggest government forfeitures in American history.
By "the costing" do you mean the retail and wholesale pricing? That's free-market, unregulated, done by the pharma companies' own pricing staffs. Those are some of the most important people in the pharma marketing business.
What's affecting my wallet isn't quest for profits...that's a good thing as it encourages competition and innovation. It's the artificial force applied to the market by the blind acceptance of what some scientists, not all scientists, state as absolute truth. If the ozone hole is man-made, why don't ALL "scientists" concur? Hint: where do scientists get funding?
I know some "scientists", some of the best in the world. Not one buys the ozone hole crap. (References and phone numbers available on request, but pack a lunch and go to the bathroom before you get on the phone 'cuz you'll be there for quite a while...they like to teach!)
Tom, If you are serious, I'm interested. I've not taken much of an interest in this issue but I've watched a lot of film footage and seen the empirical evidence. As you know, I also read a great deal. I've got a big project that I'm winding up with the Air Force right now but I'll have a little time in three or four weeks.
Who said the ozone-hole was man made? Offering straw men now? Ozone depletion is the argument for banning Freon and the like.
"scientists"? Personally I don't care who you know, I do know that you hold contrary views to the majority of the world on most things, as does George W Bush, doesn't make you right. Funny how George and you espouse democracy, yet disavow the any democratic like decisions. Likewise your "scientists", on retainers from either oil companies or tobacco companies one would imagine, certainly fully paid up members of the GOP.
Perhaps if a spare moment you could cite any papers your "scientists" have published conclusively refuting the following:
First I'll line you up with Dr. George Fischer, probably one of the top physicists ever. He'll be over to the plant this week and I'll set it up. Send me some contact info.
I had lunch with George today and discussed the ozone layer a bit. He stated that since he has done no work on such and that he can't prove anything either way and that he was inclined to think that politics play a big part but did say he read some credible work by a guy that was a bigwig in Scandinavian EPA that has a fairly good argument against the effect of Freon on the ozone layer. George also states that the prudent thing to do even if the science is not perfect is to ban Freon as it is a minor consideration not worth a battle that nobody wants to fight.
Umm, the patents ran out in 1948 or thereabouts. Must be a pretty slow marketing campaign to just wake up to the fact they had no patent for 40+ years! See :
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.