The free dinners, regular visits from 'detail' people (drug reps), gifts, office lunches, and other methods to buy a doctor's time (and mind) are an all too common marketing tool -- and they work.
Yes, the cost of research is a positive AND a negative -- the drug companies argue that their prices MUST be high because of the expense of developing new drugs. But is it fair to gouge patients for these newly developed medications?
Is the cost of advertising - not insignificant - a big part of the cost of the actual drug? Are patients suggesting to their doctors that they should take a heavily advertised product vs. a similar product that isn't being pushed as hard? And, FWIW, why should patients be requesting certain medications just because they saw it advertised 300 times in the last week?
True, some pharmaceutical companies have programs that may provide the medication free or heavily discounted to patients who can't afford them (and I'm extremely grateful that a medication that would cost me $2400 a year, with insurance) is being provided to me. But I'm still concerned with the high cost of medications that cost dollars to manufacture but cost millions to develop.
Where's the trade off? Should the government kick in more funds for R&D so that the cost of newly developed medications can be reduced when the product is developed? Would the manufacturers actually agree to reduce the price of the medication if the Feds funded the development?
Strange thought here - what if the Feds would reimburse the pharmaceutical companies for their R&D costs in exchange for making the medications affordable? Perhaps the companies can get a fair profit, but not charge what they currently do, and NOT spend a good part of their budget on advertising.
I know that, as usual, I've gone on too long about this issue. Still, I'd like to see Medicare and the States to negotiate with the drug manufacturers to reduce the prices of medications.
