. . . then this article might fascinate you, and give you an understanding of the market forces in play that actually eliminate the incentives for drug companies to innovate new drugs for serious diseases. On the surface, the logic of the myth makes sense: pharma’s must charge high prices for drugs to afford to invest heavily in R&D. Yet, with profits as high as 25%, that’s money that sounds to the layperson’s ears like the very money available to the drug companies to spend on R&D. Not exactly. That’s money leftover after the pharmas have already invested in R&D. In other words, those profits could theoretically — at some point in the future — be funding used to invest in new drugs; or, it could also just be invested in whatever financial instruments bring in the most profitable returns, or just entirely turned over to shareholders. And, as the authors of this rivetting article (Harvard Medical School professors and former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine) point out (it’s one of the most interesting reads I’ve found in years), most of the cost of drug research is, in fact, covered by us, the American tax payer. This article is a little old, yes, but the issue is still current, and my blog is new and I need to fill it up with things from the files. Download as PDF, print, and read before bed. Originally published in The New Republic, December 22, 2002. America’s Drug Problem
- ‘Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term’
- Recommended Podcast: Stanford Technology Ventures Program Entrepreneurial Thought Leader Lecture Series
- I always knew I needed multiple, or larger, computer monitors . . .
- A recent New Yorker profile of Spitzer
- What kind of presidency would she or he make?
- Hillary or Obama? What’s the difference?
- Reversing the “Bradley Effect” – Gender Style
- Hysterical Tucker Carlson essay about touring with Ron Paul
- The Checklist
- Obama: From Promise to Power