Ah those silly irrational business people who think their job is making a
profit instead of doing good deeds.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Yup, those same irrational hypocritical folks who proffer ad campaigns
extolling the virtues of their companies and what a standup job they are
doing for mankind. A little honesty would go a long way, "We are not
here to find a cure for _(insert your favourite disease)_, we're to pry
as much money out your and your insurance company's wallets with the
least investment in R&D that we can get away with, the bottom line is
the only line!".

You should see the stockholders reports from some of these companies. It
is invariably brought up that they increased R&D spending, show lovely
full color glossy photos of smiling people in hi-tech labs, etc etc. It
is also almost invariably proposed by a non-board member shareholder to
reduce advertising funding, whereupon it is pointed out that increasing
R&D leads to increased income by some tiny fraction whereas increasing
advertising raises income by a whopping multiplier.

If people weren't so dang gullible, we wouldn't have this problem!

In any event, there are quite a few of the big pharmaceutical companies
are headed by docs instead of MBAs. While that's not a guarantee they're
looking in the right direction, it's better than nothing.

DSK

Maybe it's because you prescribe a very limited and specialized area of
drugs? No one's going to come to you and ask for Viagra or Cielis, now, are
they?

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"katysails" wrote in message

I agree with you on the advertising thing....I had a discussion with
several docs who are quite frustrated when people come in demanding the
newest, latest drug advertised on the television. What they don't listen
to is the side effects or the disclaimers. This drives the price of
health care up. Rather than take a medicine that is more suitable, and
mist likely generic, they insist on the newer medication at the higher
price...the insurance company, then, is left with the balance after the
co-pay....and we wonder why prescription riders are so high?

There is something that doesn't figure with this argument. I have no
problem whatever steering patients to a more appropriate medication. If
the physicians to whom you spoke can't affect a similar outcome, they
don't have the confidence of their patients. Advertising never plays a
role in the final decision my patients and I ultimately make. Initially
they may *think* they have the answer, but they trust me to set them
straight if that info is false or inappropriate.

The primary reason medications and Rx riders are so high has far more to
do with governmental intervention (the generic drug law, for starters)
than with advertising.

Max

"Dave" wrote

Right. And let's have the guvmint require all the food companies, the car
manufacturers, home builders, etc. etc. etc. do likewise.

No, let's get the government out of it so that we can choose products from
competing companies just like we choose between fast food companies and car
makers instead of having to settle for what some MD prescribes based on
commissions.

Maybe we could even require ads showing public flogging of all their
executives be shown nightly.

Now that I would vote for!

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:13:55 -0400, Martin Baxter said:


Yup, those same irrational hypocritical folks who proffer ad campaigns extolling the virtues of their companies and what a standup job they are doing
for mankind. A little honesty would go a long way, "We are not here to find a cure for _(insert your favourite disease)_, we're to pry as much money
out your and your insurance company's wallets with the least investment in R&D that we can get away with, the bottom line is the only line!".


Right. And let's have the guvmint require all the food companies, the car
manufacturers, home builders, etc. etc. etc. do likewise. Maybe we could
even require ads showing public flogging of all their executives be shown
nightly.



Whoa! I didn't say anything about the government, the last time a government actually represented the people was immediately following a revolution.

Clearly patent protection has a purpose, (don't forget this requires government intervention, sometimes gov. is a necessary evil), I just don't like
BS, from corporations, government, politicians, lawyers....

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

Cheers
Marty

DSK wrote:




You should see the stockholders reports from some of these companies. It
is invariably brought up that they increased R&D spending, show lovely
full color glossy photos of smiling people in hi-tech labs, etc etc. It
is also almost invariably proposed by a non-board member shareholder to
reduce advertising funding, whereupon it is pointed out that increasing
R&D leads to increased income by some tiny fraction whereas increasing
advertising raises income by a whopping multiplier.

Well if we omit the hyperbole, I agree with you, investment in product promotion
returns a much higher yield than R&D, I just find it perplexing to hear pharmacuticals
pleading that they need twenty year patent protection to recoup their R&D funding when in fact those funds represent
a relatively small fraction of operating costs, advertising outstrips it by about 10 to 1 for most companies.



Cheers
Marty

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Speaking of being an "I told you so...."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6454493/


On 18 Oct 2004 11:14:15 -0500, Dave said:

That's simply snake oil. One of two things happen. Either you create a
shortage in Canada, or the Canadians prohibit export. (Probably both. Or, if
they are sensible about it, they allow the price to rise to a point where it
won't make any difference.) Personally, I think it would be a good idea to
allow importation, since it would ultimately force the Canadians to pick up
part of the development costs that are now being born entirely by Americans.
But as a long-range solution, it doesn't work. The sizes of the markets are
just too disparate.

Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price. BushCo has made
that illegal, even though the VA can and does do this.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Nov 2004 18:32:19 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price.

What a brilliant idea--make it cheaper for those whom the guvmint
subsidizes, so the rest of us have to pay more.

You mean like US vets?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 10:31:04 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price.

What a brilliant idea--make it cheaper for those whom the guvmint
subsidizes, so the rest of us have to pay more.

You mean like US vets?

Dunno, Jon. Are veterans the primary beneficiaries of medicare?

They're the primary beneficiaries of negotiated drug costs you idiot.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 11:27:13 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:


Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price.


What a brilliant idea--make it cheaper for those whom the guvmint
subsidizes, so the rest of us have to pay more.

You mean like US vets?

Dunno, Jon. Are veterans the primary beneficiaries of medicare?

They're the primary beneficiaries of negotiated drug costs you idiot.

And you would limit the lower prices to vets?

See above, idiot.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 11:41:50 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Dunno, Jon. Are veterans the primary beneficiaries of medicare?

They're the primary beneficiaries of negotiated drug costs you idiot.

So I take it your argument is that these lower prices should be extended to
more people, so the remaining people who aren't the objects of the guvmint's
largesse would have to pay higher prices.

So, what you're saying is that it is not ok, in a free market society,
to be able to negotiate with companies for volume discounts? Got it.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."