Re: Estou aqui no Recife, Brasil

[RLB <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 14, 11:34=A0am, JoeRaisin <JoeRai...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The first time's always the hardest...

I'll take your word for it.

> I would hazard that Brazil is a bit more affluent than Thailand.

Im not so sure about that. Neither ountry is listed among the 50
poorest nations in the world.  I do know that Brazil's constitution
guarantees health care to all citizens.  The quality is not the same
in public hospitals as in private ones.  However, Brazil does provide
free ARVs to all HIV/AIDS patients.  Brazil has also been able to
limit the spread of the disease to less than half what the WHO
predicted.

> Shouldn't the countries that CAN pay a bit more do so?

The drug is actually quite inexpensive to produce. Development costs
have long ago been covered.  Merck is actually far better off than
many of the countries which buys its products.

> Have you any idea how much it costs to develop, test and bring to market =
anew drug? =A0I don't because my calculator only goes out to ten places.

Yes.  Several years ago it was estimated around $100M.  Do you have
any idea how much Merck has profited from AIDS drugs?

> What pays for that development? =A0"Well, Billy," (In my best grade-schoo=
l
> film strip narrator's voice) "The research and development budgets of a
> big drug (I use 'drug' because I can't spell 'pharmaceutical') company
> is paid for out of the profits it gets from products it already has
> under patent." (That was an attempt to inject a little light-hearted
> tone so we can keep the debate good natured)
>
> Then there are the drugs developed for very rare conditions which, even
> with the orphan drug act, sometimes never turn a profit. =A0Some of them
> simply don't engender the amount of grant money that others do - some
> lobbyists are better than others. =A0Those drugs are paid for in the very
> same way, through profits.
>
> Do we know for a fact that the price Thailand pays is above cost? =A0We
> can speculate - but nothing more.
>
> So... shouldn't those countries that can afford to pay a bit more chip
> in? =A0Time to get some skin in the game, so to speak?
>
> What I think is obscene is the Pharmaceutical salesmen who make healthy
> six figure incomes. =A0Drugs should be chosen by physicians based upon
> statistics that show what works - not because of a bunch of goodies
 > passed around.

I come from a family with a history of pharmaceutical jobs. My older
brother worked as a programmer analyst for Sherring. The next brother
worked for Merck as a detailer. He never earned 6 figures with them
though. My dad, who passed away a few months ago, was Vice-President
of Bristol-Meyers for many years.  One sister worked for BMY and
another pharmaceutical giant many years ago.  As you know, I built my
own business in the alarm industry.

> If clinical trials bear out a drugs effectiveness, that's all the
> marketing it needs.

Thats not quite true.  Detailers are the people youre talking about.
Their job is to educate doctors about newly developed drugs.  They
hand out free samples to physicians as well, so the next time you get
one of those freebies from your doctor, thank a detailer. :)

> The way it is, it's hard to know if the drugs you're getting are
> prescribed because that are proven to be the best treatment for your
> condition, or because the pharmaceutical rep had a big rack and flashed
> some nicely curved leg...

If you ever saw my brother in a swimsuit that idea would make you
laugh.  :)

Regards,
Robert