Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?
It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.
What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?
Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?
You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.
Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?
No, because most companies don’t keep track of profit on each drug the way you are asking. There are so many general costs that run through the whole company, failed projects, etc, not just one winner.
My question to you is - what is “modest” profit and why should a company that does something revolutionary only make a “modest” profit.