by rwg3 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:49 pm
[/quote]
I wish someone would... I've been told that they spend more on advertising than they do on R&D. If people really are sick they'll be buying the drugs anyway so the economy of scale is the same, but the drug companies' costs would drop like a rock. Seems like they could then lower the price of their drugs (or spend more on R&D which would result in better treatment options).[/quote]
Actually this is not quite as simple as that. Yes most companies marketing budgets are bigger than than the R&D component. They have two different marketing aims, one to physicians and one to the public. There are usually more than one manufacturer's drug to treat a condition and the companies all fight to have their brand used. They spend money on physicians to educate them about the benefits of a particular therapy, then they spend money to get the public to ask their physicians for that medicine.
Changes made in the fairly recent past have curtailed some what the direct marketing to physicians and the abuses that occurred there. This has shifted the focus towards direct consumer pitches. You would not be imagining an increase in the number of adds you see in the media, as this area is largely unregulated.
The scary numbers involve the dollars spent on "educating" our elected public officials and supporting PACs. Therein lies fertile ground for political maneuvering.
"Moderation is the silken string running through the pearl-chain of all virtues", Thomas Fuller