|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2004 : 08:04:52 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I understand where you're coming from, but the major flaw in your premise is that you treat the "medical industry" as one large monolithic profit center, when in economic reality, it comprises a lot of different people all trying to make a buck. A global drug company looking at diabetes cures doesn't give a rat's ass about how much money a local medical supplier is making by selling hypodermic needles to diabetics at a giant markup. There is no guarantee that Lilly, which sells Humulin, will also be the company to sell the drugs to treat whatever secondary complications the Humulin buyers might have, especially considering that some of those drugs - in use for a long time - are likely to be generics (think antifungals). Any such profit is unstable to begin with, as some other company may very well come out with a new, and better, neuropathy treatment (for example) tomorrow.
No single company - or group of subsidiaries - is coming anywhere close to making $23.2 billion a year on diabetes, especially since most of that money is going to doctors and hospitals just for appointments and bed space. According to the study you linked to (thanks), the unit cost of institutional care in 2002 was $4,217, whereas the unit cost of supplies (insulin, meters, glucose, etc.) was $2,444 per year. And again, Lilly doesn't care from whom you buy your testing supplies from, since they cannot control your shopping.
Lilly made a billion bucks each on Humulin and Humalog in 2003, wordlwide. For comparison purposes, they made just $1.166 billion on both drugs, combined, in the U.S. (since the article you linked to only discusses U.S. costs). And they reported a drop in sales from the previous year, due to "continuing competitive pressures."
I submit that were Lilly to create and sell a cure for diabetes, they could reap a couple decades (or more) of their current profits in a short time, allowing them to re-tool manufacturing plants for the next "big drug" or other product in their pipelines. In other words, the "lost" profits from curing diabetes would be easily and quickly replaced with such a large infusion of cash.
And the doctors, by the way, would love to see long-term, chronic diseases cured. It is as frustrating to them as it is to the patients that there is no cure for these things. My dermatologist would much rather blast away at spider veins with his laser, raking in the dough (as such procedures aren't limited in cost by HMOs), than he would to keep seeing me for ten minutes every so often to re-prescribe me some generic steroid for my psoriasis.
And diabetes is so well-known that it's gotta be boring for doctors to deal with. I know an endocrinologist who'd much rather see a patient with a hormonal imbalance of unknown etiology than he would like to see yet another diabetic.
Doctors can't publish case reports on stable, controlled diabetes. And even if all their diabetes patients suddenly vanished, there'd be plenty of other people to come and fill appointment slots. That's why specialists won't take new patients for weeks or longer, typically: the appointment book is filled with check-ups for long-term patients. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 08:14:56 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and:
Out of every seven members of the board of directors of big drug companies, there is probably one diabetic. Out of every seven relatives of board members, there is probably one diabetic. If you think that a board member whose life is touched by diabetes wouldn't scream bloody murder to the press if his/her own company refused to examine what might be a promising diabetes cure, you are positing a scenario that is, simply, incredible.
And the people who tend to do the real basic research, the scientists in the universities and hospitals, the people whose research is used as a basis by the drug companies, also don't care about the profits of those companies, for the most part. They would surely blab about their fantastic diabetes breakthrough to the press. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 08:25:40 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to echo the sentiments here, Dude.
Physicians and bio-tech companies are interested in a cure. The effect on their competition would serve not only their short term, but also long term goals. Merely treating the disease seriously hampers their profit margin as Medicare and Managed care will continually eat into their average compensation for treatment.
Curing the patient means that physicians have one less draw on their profits. A large number of diabetes patients are Medicare eligible individuals. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed and remittance from managed care and medicare has not kept up.
There is no ethical or economic motivation for not finding a cure for diabetes or any other disease. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 10:05:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I saw no evidence of a large conspiracy to hide scientific information or to studiously avoid a cure.
I don't know if you realize it, but your opinion essentially indicts the entire biotech scientist community. You're slamming their ethics as scientists and as humans
I'm not claiming any conspiracy.... I'm claiming that companies will act in accordance with what they percieve to be their own best longterm profitability.
And the scientists are not the ones who provide the $$ for research. Believe me, I would 100% agree with you if it were scientists running the show on the corporate end. Even those few men/women of science who move on to the corporate part of these companies have their base motivations changed.... you must act in accordance with shareholder interest, and increase shareholder value. i.e. Due Dilligence. If you fail to do this, you won't be managing anything for long.
quote:
but the major flaw in your premise is that you treat the "medical industry" as one large monolithic profit center, when in economic reality, it comprises a lot of different people all trying to make a buck.
Perhaps I am overgeneralizing in my post. I am aware that most of those 23billion go to doctors/hospitals/clinics/ect.. I am also aware that no one company controls the treatment for diabetes.
My contention is that these companies who do make a couple billion a year on treatments are not interested in a cure.
Why? They have a solid product line. They have ways to extend their ability to be the sole maker of some drugs (especially ones created by biotech) by patents on the manufacturing process rather than the substance itself. The short term gain to be had from a cure is not comparable to the long term profit. Would you trade 2 billion a year (for the next 20-40) for 5 billion a year for 2 years? Especially considering the impact the babyboomer generation will have on our healthcare system in the next two decades? Their sales of these drugs will, for an absolute fact, increase when my parents generation becomes fully engaged in the healthcare system.
Now.... I can't find any info online for this one... but there may be a way you could convince me of the error of my ways. How much money does (for example, Lilly) spend a year on research for a cure for diabetes? Their website only makes the claim that they do conduct research. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 13:21:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
My contention is that these companies who do make a couple billion a year on treatments are not interested in a cure.
Why? They have a solid product line. They have ways to extend their ability to be the sole maker of some drugs (especially ones created by biotech) by patents on the manufacturing process rather than the substance itself. The short term gain to be had from a cure is not comparable to the long term profit. Would you trade 2 billion a year (for the next 20-40) for 5 billion a year for 2 years? Especially considering the impact the babyboomer generation will have on our healthcare system in the next two decades? Their sales of these drugs will, for an absolute fact, increase when my parents generation becomes fully engaged in the healthcare system.
And your contention ignores the fact that if someone other than Lilly (for example) announces tomorrow that they are starting phase-I trials of a diabetes cure, Lilly is looking at the loss of two billion per year in revenues, assuming the cure is safe and works. And if they wait until such an announcement to act, they will be some five to seven years behind the game.
The two billion dollars a year is only guaranteed if nobody else is doing research. Nobody else in the entire world, since with such a big thing as a diabetes cure, I have little doubt that if no drug company picked up the basic research and ran with it, some government would. There is no doubt the U.S. government is funding diabetes research now, anyway.
So, if someone other than Lilly finds a cure, Lilly is out two billion per year with no back-up (this would also be rather embarrassing if the other company happened to be a new startup). If Lilly finds a cure, they're out two billion a year, but get some much-larger amount for a short time, and then they're down to zero. Which, from a purely profit-driven basis, would you rather see happen if Lilly were your company? All other companies with a piece of the diabetes "pie" are in the same boat.
Drug companies, by the way, based upon basic research, add whole new lines of drugs to their production all the time. It's not like there are regulations or other restrictions which say that since Lilly is the "king" of insulin therapy, that (for example) Glaxo can't research a cure for diabetes. In fact, since diabetes represents such a large market, it is unlikely that any of the $10-billion-plus-revenue pharmaceutical companies are not researching diabetes in some way or another.quote:
Now.... I can't find any info online for this one... but there may be a way you could convince me of the error of my ways. How much money does (for example, Lilly) spend a year on research for a cure for diabetes? Their website only makes the claim that they do conduct research.
Lilly (for example) only mentions "diabetes care" products in their latest annual report. This would be a good question to ask of the American Diabetes Association. Perhaps their research pages contain an answers, somewhere (I'm out of time). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 15:05:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lilly (for example) only mentions "diabetes care" products in their latest annual report. This would be a good question to ask of the American Diabetes Association. Perhaps their research pages contain an answers, somewhere (I'm out of time).
I have been through that site looking for some indication of the ammount of money spent on research specific to a cure, can't find anything. Same with the websites of Lilly, Pfizer, Glaxo/Smith-Kline. No specific mention of how much money they put into diabetes research, or more specifically how much of that ammount is spent on cure-oriented (as opposed to treatment) research.
quote:
There is no doubt the U.S. government is funding diabetes research now, anyway.
As it says on the Pfizer site http://www.thepfizerjournal.com/default.asp?a=article&j=tpj32&t=Quest%20For%20New%20Cures About 36% of biomedical research is payed for by the US Gov. 57% by industry. Alot of partnerships between the government and industry are inplace. Which brings me to the original topic of the thread, that stem cells are the most promising area for research to find a cure for diabetes, and because of the federal ban on $$ for stemcells the entire industry is crippled in any effort to use stem cells in research... which isn't what we are currently debating, but hey :)
quote:
So, if someone other than Lilly finds a cure, Lilly is out two billion per year with no back-up (this would also be rather embarrassing if the other company happened to be a new startup). If Lilly finds a cure, they're out two billion a year, but get some much-larger amount for a short time, and then they're down to zero. Which, from a purely profit-driven basis, would you rather see happen if Lilly were your company? All other companies with a piece of the diabetes "pie" are in the same boat.
Good point, and one that I have considered as well. I will concede this point (and more or less the argument) if I can find some evidence of signifigant expenditure that is focused on specifically finding a cure. Let me do some research. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 18:59:23 [Permalink]
|
Dude, the American Diabetes Association web site claims that the National Institutes of Health are leading the way in diabetes research. I suggest that an email to the ADA, asking about current (and/or past) funding levels of that research, overall, would be appropriate and probably answered quickly. Note well, though, that the ADA only talks about the amount of money that they pump into research, so it'd be important to stress to them the specifics of what you are asking about.
As for the drug companies, I doubt that they are legally or ethically obligated to release information about specific areas of research funding. It would clue in the competition regarding the direction in which each company is going (not that these guys don't have dumpster-divers figuring that out, anyway). One of the problems of capitalism, unfortunately.
Finally, big pharma companies tend to be global, and thus not entirely restricted by United States law. In other words, they may very well be doing stem-cell research towards a diabetes cure in some other country, even if they're other kinds of research here. If so, and they come up with something while the ban is still in place, they would probably offer "treatment vacation packages" or some such, to entice diabetics out of the States for the therapy. At least, that's what I would do, were I in pharmaceutical marketing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 19:49:13 [Permalink]
|
As a side note, there are some Aussies who are working on a gene-therapy cure for diabetes that involves altering cells in the liver to create insulin and control the levels. Apparently they have had some success in the lab.
Just interesting info for those interested.... and damned if I can find the link now.... grrr ah well. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 21:56:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And your contention ignores the fact that if someone other than Lilly (for example) announces tomorrow that they are starting phase-I trials of a diabetes cure, Lilly is looking at the loss of two billion per year in revenues, assuming the cure is safe and works. And if they wait until such an announcement to act, they will be some five to seven years behind the game.
Exactly. Bush's attempt to stop stem cell research is giving my country, Sweden, the chance of becoming the Number One Nation in the world in this field. Already do we see how top notch American scientists are loosing their edge, or have to move to other countries in order to continue their research.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 11:01:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.As for the drug companies, I doubt that they are legally or ethically obligated to release information about specific areas of research funding. It would clue in the competition regarding the direction in which each company is going (not that these guys don't have dumpster-divers figuring that out, anyway). One of the problems of capitalism, unfortunately.
Research is one of the largest expenditures in pharamacueticals. This is one reason that a pharamacuetical is patented for 5 years exclusive release by the developer. This is done to assist the developer in recovering some of the R&D costs that went into producing the pharmacuetical. R&D for the generics aren't nearly as expensive in relation, as the generic must only show bio-equivalency of their pharamcuetical product. This patent process doesn't apply to pharamacueticals developed exclusively with funding from government grants - this is an extreme rarity.
quote:
Finally, big pharma companies tend to be global, and thus not entirely restricted by United States law. In other words, they may very well be doing stem-cell research towards a diabetes cure in some other country, even if they're other kinds of research here. If so, and they come up with something while the ban is still in place, they would probably offer "treatment vacation packages" or some such, to entice diabetics out of the States for the therapy. At least, that's what I would do, were I in pharmaceutical marketing.
I worked for Geneva Pharmacueticals, owned out of Switzerland. It's unfortunate, though, that this area of research is being denied to American based researchers. The research will continue.
Stem-cell research is perhaps the best hope for many people like my mother who have MS. Well, maybe someone will find something that will ameliorate the effects of the disease. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
