Costco Drugs

[Michael Larson]

Still watching the frontline piece.

I wish everyone would

I object to one of the players calling Paulson a Free Market Republican.

He has acted as anything but a free marketer.

Paulson seems top be more about taking care of Paulson and his buds more than anything else.

That he claims an( R) after his name it only demonstrates one more problem with the Grand Old Party.

[dbelmont]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You might want to consider adding in a bit for research, drug trials, FDA compliance and all that little stuff.

Did you read all the way to the end of the snopes entry?

What you really meant to say is remember the Marketing costs (including sending Docs on trips to the Islands among other things). According to most research Marketing is the number one expense (ahead of research, etc) for the drug companies. The basic fact is that they are profiteers

Other countries have no problem controlling costs of drugs because they don't accept all the fluff expenses. But central to every drug companies business plan is being able overcharge Americans for all their so-called development costs (many of which are actually covered by taxpayers through NIH and CDC).

To give some backup to what I'm saying go here

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

What you really meant to say is remember the Marketing costs (including sending Docs on trips to the Islands among other things). According to most research Marketing is the number one expense (ahead of research, etc) for the drug companies. The basic fact is that they are profiteers

Other countries have no problem controlling costs of drugs because they don't accept all the fluff expenses. But central to every drug companies business plan is being able overcharge Americans for all their so-called development costs (many of which are actually covered by taxpayers through NIH and CDC).

To give some backup to what I'm saying go here

Please feel free to not buy the drugs they produce.

BTW-I assume you are also a "profiteer".

[dbelmont]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Please feel free to not buy the drugs they produce.

BTW-I assume you are also a "profiteer".

If you mean do I attempt to make a fair profit. In a free and open competitive market. Of course.

I do take exception to the drug company profiteering which I define as using a government granted monopoly position to extract huge profits without any real competition. This only starts with unreasonable patent protection where meaningless and minor formula changes grant extra time to extract every penny they can . It also includes the practice of paying potential competitors not to compete. (Can you do that in your business?) or to artificially manipulate prices by paying your competitor to charge a similar price. (which would be illegal if we did it)

Believe me I don't want the government to run the drug companies. I'd be satisfied if they had to compete on a similar level that you and I have to. Because I do believe in the free market as long as it is allowed to act, which is not now the case with the drug industry.

I'd also like to ban the practice of allowing the drug companies to be the only source of physician training about the efficacy of specific drugs. This incestuous relationship has been repeatedly shown to guarantee sales for that drug company, not the provision of good patient care knowledge.

[Michael Larson]

I think your charges of monopoly are a bit overdone.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Please show me how they can legally pay a competitor to prop up his price.

[dbelmont]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I think your charges of monopoly are a bit overdone.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Please show me how they can legally pay a competitor to prop up his price.

Try this for a start.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5006017173

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

Try this for a start.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KVyLvLl5GVNB4zvXj9kfL Pg9l2LvrnDQ2vwJ7rQ64Bv1fhD9G6WW!-1912888143!73151239?docId=5006017173

Thanks. I could have worded my request more carefully.

On September 15, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. (1) The Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws.

I should have asked where they had been found to have paid illegally.

I do find this type of hush money disturbing and wonder how prevalent it is.

There are generics for so many meds but not for the newer ones of course.

I ask my doc for a cheaper but still effective med if it will do the job.
It's a value decision for me.

One day I may choose the latest and greatest if it makes more sense.

[dbelmont]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Thanks. I could have worded my request more carefully.

On September 15, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. (1) The Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws.

I should have asked where they had been found to have paid illegally.

I do find this type of hush money disturbing and wonder how prevalent it is.

There are generics for so many meds but not for the newer ones of course.

I ask my doc for a cheaper but still effective med if it will do the job.
It's a value decision for me.

One day I may choose the latest and greatest if it makes more sense.

My point being is that Big Pharma has been essentially given an exception from the law. As this ruling says. Unlike the rest of us who would be charged if we were caught effectively fixing prices by paying competitors to stay out.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

My point being is that Big Pharma has been essentially given an exception from the law. As this ruling says. Unlike the rest of us who would be charged if we were caught effectively fixing prices by paying competitors to stay out.

I read part of the history of this case and it's more complicated than that.

It is a complicated subject and involves intellectual right of patent and how long they can be extended by filing patent applications for derivative drugs in the same family as the original.