Drug Giant Pledges Cheap Medicine For World's Poor 317
bmsleight writes in with a Guardian piece on the decision of the world's second biggest pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline, to radically shift its attitude towards providing cheap drugs to millions of people in the developing world. "[The new CEO] said that GSK will... cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US — and less if possible — and make drugs more affordable in middle-income countries such as Brazil and India; put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a 'patent pool,' so they can be explored by other researchers; and reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics, and staff."
It's called market segmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not generous, it's just good sales. Maybe greed is good though.
Re:It's called market segmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, since we're talking about drugs here, the phrase "first hit is free" comes readily to mind.
Another factor here is that drug companies want Latin America in particular to develop medical systems dependent on their drugs, rather than trying to replicate the Cuban model which doesn't rely on US drug companies and still manages to get pretty good results. It's sort of like what Intel and MS did to the OLPC project.
Re:It's called market segmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
This strikes me as a Win/Win type situation for BlackHat conspiracy folks.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Does the cuban model respect the patents on the pills?
Like digital music replication of medicines is not always expensive. But the R&D costs are enormous.
For example, just to get single drug through clinical trials is, according to Merc, about half a billion dollars, and most drugs in the pipeline will not make it all the way to the end. And that does not include any of the R&D costs to discover the drug.
If cuba just replicates drugs without royalties then one could presumably cut costs enormousl
Re:It's called market segmentation (Score:4, Informative)
Does the Cuban model respect the patents on the pills?
Their health care system is geared towards reducing the need for pills: general practitioners in Cuba focus a lot of their efforts on preventative care, and also receive extensive training in herbal, nutritional, and behavioral solutions to health problems. This was started in large part out of necessity: Cuba simply can't afford a lot of pills, and hasn't had significant access to US goods since 1959.
So whether they respect the patent isn't really important, because they can't get the pill to copy in the first place. The reason the Cuban system is particularly relevant to discussions of Latin American health care is that many countries (notably Bolivia, Venezuela, and Brazil) have all made efforts to copy Cuba's methods.
Re:It's called market segmentation (Score:4, Informative)
(Also, can you provide a citation for the allegation that Marketing outweighs R&D? Although I agree with your sentiment, most marketing is directed at physicians in the form of educational materials, rather than patients)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Marketing is double the cost of research. That probably does not also include lobbying fees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby [wikipedia.org]
The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]
Re: (Score:2)
Greed is good, actually, when used properly. When used improperly, it's very destructive to the person who is greedy, as well as everything they touch with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Greed is destructive, I think you mean capitalism is good when used properly. When used improperly, it's greed. Greed leads to things like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you understand how the goose works and let it work for you, that's using resources properly.
Greed in the world of big pharma means stifling diabetes cures because insulin is such a cash cow. Treating symptoms with long courses of drugs instead of solving the problem. Greed is setting up a financial house of cards, and n
Re: (Score:2)
I would separate 'greed' from normal self interest.
I consider greed to be excess self interest that misses the larger picture and results in a worse outcome for all in the long run.
Enlightened self interest says I can benefit more over time by not trying to brutally screw everyone else in the world in the near term.
I own a hefty chunk of GSK stock, so I will find out first hand how this plays out financially in the long run.
the first tablet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, such an arrangement is only possible if people respect the "licence" (contract that is a prerequisite of the sale) of the pills.
That contract is going to specify that export to richer countries is not permitted.
Suppose this after-sale contract were to be ruled void (which is quite possibly the correct way for a judge to rule given current law), and import allowed, the pharma "giant" will be competing against itself, resulting in massive losses.
Those massive losses, that stem from not respecting t
Re: good sales and goodwill (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a close cousin to the ever-popular "going green" announcements and product releases. My current favorite for that B.S. is Johnson&Johnson, "a family [owned] company". Then there's "antibacterial" and antimicrobial products.
All of this can perhaps be filed under the heading of Deliberate Mis-Education. Big Pharma is... wait for it... LE-GEN-DARY for that, including even mis-educating general practitioners as well as consumers. Big Pharma would like the world to completely forget that virtually a
Johnson != Johnson (Score:4, Informative)
My current favorite for that B.S. is Johnson&Johnson, "a family [owned] company".
I've never heard JNJ referred to as a family company. Are you confusing it with SC Johnson [wikipedia.org], the company that makes Ziploc, Windex, and Scrubbing Bubbles products?
Re: (Score:2)
My current favorite for that B.S. is Johnson&Johnson, "a family [owned] company".
I've never heard JNJ referred to as a family company.
Their TV commercials (used to?) end with the statement "Johnson and Johnson: A family company". Don't know if they still do, since I stopped watching commercials some years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their TV commercials (used to?) end with the statement "Johnson and Johnson: A family company".
Did it sound like the end of this commercial [youtube.com]? If so, that's SCJ, not JNJ.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is the bet that a slice of this 20% of profits will be re-invested in "educating" medical staff?
Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider that just because a nation's average income is relatively high, it does not follow that everyone in that country is able to buy the products at the higher price. Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?
That's not social justice. It's social prejudice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Social prejudice is this year's racial prejudice.
Let ppl make a ham-fisted attempt at atoning for past abuses will ya?, jeez ;-)
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be all well and good but they aren't atoning for shit here. Let me count the ways for you:
1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...
2. They are putting some of their patents in a "patent pool", whatever that means, instead of doing the real "right thing" and releasing those patents to the public domain. Torpedo patents anyone...
3. This isn't an attempt to "do good" more than it is an attempt to stop countries from ignoring their patents and developing generics on their own. A little profit is better than no profit in their eyes. Besides, as 1 above suggests, they will make it up off the richer countries.
This is a multi-billion dollar a year industry we are talking about here. They have no conscience and no morals. Profit is their only motivator. No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance. This is doubly so with the drug industry.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...
And how do they plan to stop 1st world countries from importing drugs from their developing brethren?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By introducing legislation banning it. How else? You don't think they have paid out those millions in bribes....er...Campaign contributions for nothing do you? You don't think they hired that army of lobbyists for the good of the people do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Those are all very good points.
I also wonder if they are trying to be 'good' before the day of judgment comes. And by that, I mean health care reform in the US. Or perhaps a drug company bailout of some sort.
I'm just thinking: if one of the US car manufacturers had been extra pursuant of green technologies, or even just displayed some sort of extra good will, they'd probably have gotten better treatment at the bailout hearings.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...
They've been doing this sort of thing for decades, and YES, they've been giving up profits.
2. They are putting some of their patents in a "patent pool", whatever that means, instead of doing the real "right thing" and releasing those patents to the public domain. Torpedo patents anyone...
It keeps fly-by-night Third World companies from producing crappy, ineffect
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance. This is doubly so with the drug industry.
Remind me again where they get the money to do research and development?
What's that? You say the profit on sales of existing drugs funds research into future drugs? And that if companies stopped profiting from previous developments, future advances would stagnate?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance.
And that is why your generation sucks balls. We hate you and want you to hurry up and die. The younger generations seem to have a little heart. And yes, I run a company, and yes, we have a heart.
You run a private company, not a public corporation, yes? Companies owned by individuals/small groups have no problem in the "heart" department.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?
Because in Soviet Russia^W^W^H Capitalist America, you can increase profits that way. And that's encouraged. In a market where you're free to not trade, any trade you do is good for the people who trade (according to simplistic Econ 101 principles, and discounting negative externalities, and ...).
Whether selling cheap medicine in poor countries is a good thing in practice is another question.
That's an attempt at an answer to your question. I want to add to that the following:
I find it strange that you sa
Re: (Score:2)
I think I see a new meme coming out of this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:5, Informative)
It is a case of supply vs. demand. It is just business. Each country or area has a different supply vs. demand curve. If the average population makes 30k a year there will be a different curve then people living on 10k a year. Getting the right balance will maximize profits and matching pricing for the right areas is more profitable.
This happens in all sectors, say you are traveling around the world and you give the bell boy a 5 dollar tip. In the US that will like $5 for them (Deli-Meat for a week). In the country where the average is about $10k that is a $15 (Good cuts for meat for dinner about 2 days and the deli-meat) for the really poor countries where people make $1k a year. That would be close to a $150 tip (Food for a family for a week or 2).
Re: (Score:2)
Each country or area has a different supply vs. demand curve.
But this isn't true. The supply is global, not local to each country. They're trying to take advantage of a "global economy" on their supply side, but the segmented "local economies" on the demand side.
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs. (There is a small, flat charge per prescription)
So in other words (Score:2)
you don't really have any idea how much you really pay for except what comes directly out of your pocket the day you pick it up?
Ignorance is bliss.
you are paying the full cost, you just don't what full cost really is let alone what is really being paid. In other words, if you were getting ripped off you wouldn't know it. Now, if a drug cost less than the threshold are you given it for that lower cost or at the mandated price? (as in, do you pay more for cheap drugs to make up paying less for expensive o
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Just like HEALTH INSURANCE?
In any system, the generally healthy (like me) are going to end up subsidising those who have more health problems.
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's much better to pay twice as much for private healthcare, then die anyway because your uninsured neighbour infects you with a nasty disease they left untreated. Or the uninsured bus driver with the untreated dodgy knee wipes out your car.
News: You pay for other people's ill health one way or another. If they're too ill to work, they're not paying taxes - so you're paying more.
Still, no point in trying to explain civilization to retards eh?
Not capable of processing nuance I guess (Score:3, Insightful)
Michael Moore showed how the 50 or so high-ranking Communist Party Members and select VIPs get treated. In contrast, Canadians come to America to get the healthcare that the vast majority of Americans (80+%) get (of course they have to pay out of pocket since they don't have American insura
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not from the UK, there they have a comprehensive national insurance policy. Still, when I look at the USA who tax their citizens at a rate of 2.9% [wikipedia.org] for medical cover that covers only the disabled and elderly (>65), and compare that to the 1.5% [wikipedia.org] we pay here in Australia that gets comprehensive health cover for every citizen, I just cannot comprehend the mentality that a state run hospital service is somehow less necessary to a modern functioning society than a state run fire service or police service. They are all vital to a functional stable society, and it is in the best interests of every citizen to have full coverage for all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Health habits wouldn't correlate with insurance much because the cost is less than the suffering.
As for the efficiencies of public health, when was the last time a HMO was accused of efficiently delivering customer treatments? They don't act too different to Soviet Central Planners, except they aint as altruistic. At least, that's what I saw on Sicko.
It's not like health insurance is an efficient market - you can't change (without a lot of costs), and customers don't know the difference between good and bad
Re: (Score:2)
*snicker* I've been seen by a nurse twice in the last two years - once needed a bandage on my finger, once didn't need any treatment. Sorry for my huge drain on the nation's coffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Solidarity hey?
Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2)
(I put on my pedant hat and robe) No, it applies if you happen to live in England regardless of nationality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called price discrimination. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to choose the price at which they sell the goods that they own, that they produced? Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
Re: (Score:2)
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
Sure. He's not entitled to the sweat of my brow. Much of the research is actually done at schools and universities which receive public funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Either the research done at the schools was funded by them, and they're "entitled" to it, or the research was done by the schools for some other reason, and they either licensed it (go argue with the licensor about the fees if they weren't enough) or the research was put in the public domain, which everybody is free to put to use as they see fit (but they still need the facilities to put the research into practice anyway, an investment that I hope you agree is fair they recoup). Whichever way you turn it, t
Re: (Score:2)
Its how things seem to work around here. If you are capable of barely making it, you get screwed.
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?
This statement boggles my mind.
Sure, the people born in the war-torn, poverty-ridden, disease-ridden, crime-laden hell hole of a country is getting cheaper medicine. Of course, then they're also dealing with war, heavy poverty, disease and crime.
What Americans fail to understand is that, even the most poor off and worst person in America is (many times) still doing better than some of "rich" people in other countries.
Of course, if you want to go live in said countries so you can get cheaper medicine, be my guest. You might learn a thing or two.
Re:Dude. What about the World's rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
But... you don't understand...
If it is against the free market rules, then it is evil, and we must find an oversimplified reason to dismiss it.
So instead of saying "poor people in rich countries should get simmilar treatment" we say "let those who can't pay die, maybe that will teach them not to be poor"
An example. (Score:2)
I am without insurance in the US, and medications for a chronic disease I have top $2000 (yes, thousand) a month.
I'm sorry, but most middle and even upper middle class people will groan under that kind of expense, and i'm still just trying to start a career.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that just because a nation's average income is relatively high, it does not follow that everyone in that country is able to buy the products at the higher price. Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?
That's not social justice. It's social prejudice.
Aww, I'm so sorry that you weren't be born into a malaria-infested swamp ravaged by ethnic warfare and that your country doesn't have coupons for 75% off popular drugs.
Cry me a river, then sign up for Medicaid, you ungrateful bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem to have a me-first attitude, I won't even try to pitch the idea of being, you know, a decent person. Instead, consider this: Pharmaceuticals are just as entitled to thinking of themselves first and foremost as you are.
Which brings us to economics 101: Assume that demand for medication is very elastic [wikipedia.org] between the price points we're considering. By lowering the prices, (price * units sold) actually goes up, and they make more of a profit. (In developed countries, demand for medication tends to
Re: (Score:2)
What's your idea of middle class, then, that someone can afford $500/mo on top of mortgage, bills, food, and other necessities?
So, instead of 4x overpriced... (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't drugs already like 50% in Canada? So wouldn't a more meaningful gesture be to sell drugs for 25% of the price in Canada?
Three-quarters-off a $200 prescription is still $50. Not something that people living on a dollar or two a day can afford.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well Canada is not *that* developing.
Re:You change your health system first (Score:4, Informative)
Drugs are not sold by hospitals. Drugs in hospitals are free. For prescriptions, people buy their drugs from a pharmacist. The province isn't the one purchasing those. Pricing has nothing to do with the province.
In fact, prices in Canada are controlled by a federal Government entity, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board:
http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/ [pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca]
They set pricing limits. This has nothing to do with "huge bulk orders".
Mail order (Score:2)
Sounds great to me, when is a mail order pharmacy going to open up in one of these countries?
Re:Mail order (Score:5, Funny)
Why a patent pool for reasearch? (Score:2)
Isn't it the purpose of the patent system to make those inventions available for research in exchange for a monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
I remember an episode of House where he blasted the new Chairman's company for adding an antacid to a heart medication to renew the patent.
A few years later, GlaxoSmithKline did the exact same thing. I remember waiting with bated breath for the patent to expire in 06 (I've suffered migraines for most of my life) until their lawsuit to extend it. Then they settled another lawsuit, and a generic came out in December.
In the meantime, they added Naproxen (Available OTC as "Aleve" in the states) to the formula,
Note the double standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on. Let's be at least a little sympathetic to the plight of manufacturers trying to gain back their costs involved in bringing you the latest cures.
Re:Note the double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Note the double standard (Score:4, Informative)
I think a good example of this is Nexium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esomeprazole#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
Another good example is the antidepressant Lexapro which is just the active isomer of Celexa.
Yes, some drugs do cost an absolutely massive amount of money to develop but most drug companies are heading towards the cheaper option of extending their patents rather then creating anything new that could benefit society.
Public research (Score:2)
Let's not forget that many drugs are developed based on research funded by our national college systems. That is: developed based on research performed with our own money.
Most of their money is spent advertising, rather than doing R and D; and what money *is* spent on R&D is all about penile erectile dysfunction, or hayfever.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you mention it ... A lot of drugs these days are new drugs that aren't as effective (or have uglier side effects) as good ol' aspirin and penicillian. Except the patents are expired on the old drugs, so they don't market them any more.
Patent status can be more important than effectiveness. Heck, they only stopped marketing that antibiotic that made children hemorrhage to death when the patent expired (http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers)
Heart at
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this post is incredibly insightful! Especially to myself and others like me who are currently suffering from terminal cases of 'Low frame rate'
FFS!
Re:Note the double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, R&D costs are very high. But a significant portion of the research is sponsored by governments, not necessarily by drug manufacturers. Plus, it's hard to be sympathetic when drug manufacturers spend more money on marketing than on R&D. They also have one of the largest profit margins.
It's a little unfair to be comparing the costs of drugs and of graphics cards. One is possibly a matter of life and death. And, in an economy in which every major industry is suffering, healthcare costs continue to rise.
Re:Note the double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean seriously...let's all feel sorry for the serial killer that has to dig yet another hole...digging holes is hard work after all. Right now these companies are facing big problems in these countries because those governments are invalidating their patents right now. These companies want so much money that the peopel cannot afford that the people's governments have said "Fuck off, we will make our own generics". I suspect this "generous" price drop has more to do with putting political/economic pressure on these countries to enforce patents than it does some generous streak.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I will be a little sympathetic when they quit "modifying" drugs to get an extra 2% effectiveness on some minimal behavior of a drug to get a new patent for it so they can charge exhorbant prices over the previous version that can now be made in generic form for pennies
it's actually much worse than that. the FDA does NOT have a standard that says that a new drug has to even be as effective as the drug it replaces. And if the drug is substantially similar to the drug it is replacing, it does not even have to be subjected to a trial. Big Pharma continually replaces drugs with less effective drugs with unknown side effects, then makes claims that this is the best new thing even though those claims are completely unsubstantiated, in order to discredit the old drug which has g
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very sympathetic to their R&D costs, those that aren't already paid for by the government. Even more for the costs of safety trials, those they don't fake.
But since they could easily halve their drug costs by eliminating their "doctor schmoozing" division and their "Ads for hypochondriacs" division, which together cost more than their actual drug producing departments, I don't have much sympathy for the companies as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on. Let's be at least a little sympathetic to the plight of manufacturers trying to gain back their costs involved in bringing you the latest cures.
If a manufacturer tries to get just its R&D costs back, it looks like the drug is expensive.
If a manufacturer tries to get its R&D costs back and tries to make indecent profits, it looks like the drug is expensive.
How are we supposed to know which case is which ?
Huge profit margins despite huge R&D (Score:2)
That's a wives tail that big pharma wants you to believe. Take a look at ATI's profit margin. Now take a look at any of the big pharma's profit margins.
The average total profit margin on these companies' P&L statements is around 30%. That's global, after all factors are considered, including R&D.
Yes, 30 cents of every dollar paid on drugs is pure profit. ATI would kill for that profit margin. No other industry has nearly that much profit. Before the economic downturn, Toyota was something like
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny how if people complain about problems with the latest ATI video card being 600 dollars we hear the peanut gallery mock about early adopters but when people complain about the same thing involving drugs we hear that it's nothing but greed on the manufacturers part.
You don't suffer in horrible agony, become debilitated and lose your job, family, or sanity, or die when you don't get a video card.
Additionally, most R&D today is done in federally funded universities.
Funny how the anti-socialized medicine crowd are all over it when it comes to helping main street but its perfectly fine to socialize the R&D for these companies, then hand them the patents.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen some posts in gamer's forums that don't jibe with that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Double standard? Who modded this joker insightful?
You don't get a massive video card, you can't play $WIZZ_BANG_COOKIECUTTER_FPS_9.
You don't get your medication, the consequences can include any/all of intense suffering, ruining one's life, and fucking DEATH.
It's not a double standard when you're comparing apples to crowbars.
obvious why ... (Score:5, Informative)
from the article: "although they worry that it may undermine the generics industry which currently supplies the cheapest drugs in poor countries"
Hold the plaudits, self-interest is driving this (Score:4, Interesting)
FTA: "Campaigners privately say the move is remarkable, although they worry that it may undermine the generics industry which currently supplies the cheapest drugs in poor countries."
Exactly. Big pharma is in big trouble - blockbuster drugs going off patent, no new ones coming online, Govs. getting more aggressive in fixing prices. So, this is a smart move. While they still can, they can use the one advantage they still have - their size - to buy/crush the small 'generics' producers out.
Still, whatever the underlying motivation, it's encouraging to see big pharma at last getting more involved with the poorer nations of the world, which have been scandalously ignored.
They actually don't have any option (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they are not doing it from the kindness of their hearts. It's a matter of damage control. A country (any country) can break the patents and start producing any drug in case of need if a commercial arrangement can't be reached with the patent holder so, if they don't provide cheaper drugs, they will lose the whole deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In BRIC countries at least they do have the facilities and technology as they do have their own local drug production. :/
BTW, I wonder why I was modded flamebait, I really think like that and that was not my intention at all
TOTAL BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is really no different than Region Coding DVD players. You can maximize profits by selling in each region what the market will bear. However, you have to find ways to ensure that people can't purchase that $2 new movie, and play it in their American player.
Re:TOTAL BS (Score:4, Informative)
Not that I am a fan of outsourcing, but India's Rupee is not fixed, its value changes all the time against the dollar. The Chinese Yuan is, however, fixed.
Magnus
The Plan (Score:4, Interesting)
Step 2. Buy 10,000 units of drug X at 25% of its cost in the US/Canada/Europe.
Step 3. Sell drug X in US/Canada/Europe at 50% of its normal Drug X cost (i.e. at twice the price you paid), advertising your pharmacy as having the best prices in the country.
Step 4. (Just do step 3 a lot)
Step 5. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
1) When you buy drugs outside of the USA, the FDA flips out and says that the drugs weren't subjected to "rigorous testing" or some such blather and (they do have a point here) without such testing, you have no way to know if you are really getting the drug you think you bought or a weakened version or a placebo. In a worst case scenario, you die from tainted medicine (remember China and the "milk"?)
2) Federal law limits the amount of drugs that can legally be
Re: (Score:2)
What, you think pharma spammers are actually selling their wares legally?
Re: (Score:2)
How about:
Step 1. Go to so-called "poor country."
Step 2. Buy 10,000 units of drug X at 25% of its cost in the US/Canada/Europe.
Step 3. Give away 5,000 units of drug X to the people that need them, for free.
Step 4. Sell 5,000 units of drug X in US/Canada/Europe at 50% of its normal Drug X cost (i.e. at twice the price you paid)
Step 5. ???
Step 6. No profit, just karma!
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only do we taxpayers get to carry on subsidising the world's poor and keeping their leaders in designer shoes, now as customers of the drugs companies, we get to subsidise their medicines as well.
I give to charities, domestic and foreign, because I've decided they are deserving of my money. It is not the job of Government to do so on my behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this situation different from Microsoft or Adobe selling their "student's" or "teacher's" versions of their crappy software? It's a private company realizing that if they don't sell at a lower price, they will have no customers (or worse for them, be undercut by generic manufacturers). Granted, the CEO is doing a whole lot more than what the CEOs of the other companies (Merck, Pfizer, etc.) are doing.
What does "Government" have to do with it? I would love to see countries invest more in efforts to ir
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well this case its a company, not a government, deciding to force charity, but don't let that get in the way of your libertarian rage.
A company acts precisely as a company should... (Score:2, Insightful)
And we pillory it?
It may well end up increasing GSK's bottom line, but it will also bring needed drugs at reduced prices to people who may not otherwise be able to acquire them.
Also in the current climate of corporate idiocy isn't it rather refreshing to see a major corporation do something very smart and provide social benefits at the same time?
No you guys are right, let's stick it to 'em!
not that big a deal (Score:3, Insightful)
While one might like to think they're purpose is wholly based on charity, it's not that simple. Look, They have to offer the drugs at a lower price in third world economies if they want to sell them there. Also, selling drugs cheap in developing countries has been shown to provide long term returns for the companies (once the economy of the developing country grows into a functional first world economy, the drug manufacturer will already have a foot-hold).
And it's easy enough to meet their price of 25% of US and UK prices statement, by setting the US and UK price high enough.
I'm not being cynical. I'm being a realist who's read some history.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I just think they could lower their US prices a little if they did not advertise prescription products. Something about that whole process bothers me, and not just because the ads tend to be in the highest cost time slots. The drug companies spend huge amounts of money to tell people, "We have done all we can to get your doctor to give you this wonderful drug, now you should do it, too, and don't give up! Ofcoursetheremaybehorrificsideeffects, but look how wonderful the people in our ads feel!"
And
don't use normal logic all the time. get to know. (Score:2, Informative)
I'd be impressed... (Score:2)
Ignoring the fact that they spend twice as much on advertising as on R&D [sciencedaily.com], routinely dump their toxic crap in underdeveloped countries [wsws.org]; the truth is that the majority [blogsome.com]of their products [nytimes.com] are worthless [medindia.net], and may do more harm than good [bbc.co.uk]
Not as generous as it seems... (Score:2)
We're actually at a turning point with a lot of these less developed countries. More and more of them are advancing to a point where they're technically capable of making their own generic versions of these extremely expensive drugs (see Cuba).
Politically it would be dynamite. I can see promises of free healthcare winning Elections, and in lieu of democracy, revolutions.
Make no mistake, we're entering dangerous times for Big Drug Inc.
GSK have realized that either they make their prices acceptable, or they m
OK (Score:2)
Black Market Opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
Human nature being what it is, this is an excellent opportunity for black market corruption -- drug company sells to developing country. Corrupt elements in developing country sell back to corrupt black marketeers who then resell in 'rich' countries to corrupt vendors for reduced prices and still make huge profits.
And still the people who need the drugs don't get them, but maybe some actually will, and that's a good thing.
so glad I get to subsidize everyone else again. (Score:2)
10 cents over seas and $5 for the same pill here.
Gets really irritating when we are now in the same job market.
Snarking notwithstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
That said - this is potentially a really fantastic thing. New CEO, new game plan. Also worth noting that GSK is the second biggest pharma company in the world - this has a pretty good probability of forcing other large pharma companies to follow suit and opens the door to more of the same (for example, HIV/AIDS drugs are not covered in the patent pooling - this is still a move in the right direction, it will make subsequent moves along the same lines easier.)
Patent pooling is something NGOs have been asking big pharma to do for years now. This is a hugely positive move.
Of course GSK have motives to do this besides doing good, that does not mean doing good is ruled out.
(And I will now be watching the obits for news of Andrew Witty's untimely demise.)