There does not seem to be any good solution. If the U.S. regulated
drug prices there would be less incentive to develop new drugs. And I
am sure no one would like to see all the drug developed in the last
twenty years say disappear.

On the other hand the U.S. should not be the only developed country
that supports the development of new drugs. The Big Pharma companies
aren't stupid so there must be a good reason for the big expense on
marketing. Maybe what is needed is regulation on how the marketing is
done. No advertising to the public of drugs that require a
prescription?????????? No " hiring of doctors as consultants ".
Not sure what else would be required to get the drug companies to cut
back on marketing and still work on new drugs.

I would be for letting the drug companies account for foreign sales
separately for third world countries, but not for countries as Canada,
Germany, France etc.
But how does one draw that line? Should it be a hard line or a
sliding scale.
Germany is different from France, France is different from Poland,
Poland is different from Kenya?

How to encourage new drug development and not have the U.S. do all
the heavy lifting.

I would like to pay less for drugs, but I also want drugs developed
for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. If I get Alzheimers, I don't care
how much the drug costs, I want one that works.

If there was an easy solution , we wouldn't have this discussion.

Dan


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:83DFc.22565

The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't regulate drug
prices. Thus, our Big Pharma companies sock us with the full weight of their
up-front costs. By the way, money spent by Big Pharma on marketing is
roughly twice their entire research and development budget, including the
budget for getting FDA approvals.

By accounting for foreign sales separately they can show a profit on foreign
operations, even when drug prices are less than half those in the US, by,
first, using the FDA approval data for foreign approvals, while showing all
of those expenses in US operations; and, second, by treating all such sales
are marginal income, with nearly all expenses charged to US operations.

It's a really neat business.

Ed Huntress