Dr_Iridium

We know that out of the thousands of potential molecules, only a handful make it to clinical trials. Out of that handful, only a few obtain FDA approval. Out of those, maybe one drug will pay it's own R&D costs through sales. It's essentially costing billions to bring a single drug to market, so manufacturers have to set high costs to recoup their investment.

It is also not sensible profit-wise to research and manufacture a treatment for a more rare condition. Fewer sales would not be enough to recoup those costs.

Now, other developed countries can get the same drug cheaper because of governmental negotiaton contracts and less economic power (whatever their market will bear), and this is possible because the U.S. pays higher prices for drugs. So in essence, the U.S. is subsidizing costs for the rest of the world.

We also know that drug companies spend tons of money to advertise their products directly to consumers; as I've heard someone else put it, "In the rest of the world, doctors tell their patients what to take, but in America, patients tell their doctors what to prescribe." I am of the opinion that direct advertising to consumers should not happen with pharmaceuticals.

What are your thoughts on this?

I'm not aware of who does and does not disclose costs/profits but when you're investing millions, at the very least, to bring a drug to market, you want to recoup costs quickly before your patent runs out and so you can continue to investigate new treatments.

So yes, it makes sense to set high costs. Do they have to be that way (absurdly high)? No, but when you're also spending money on advertising and subsidizing the rest of the world, that drives up costs.

Ok, think whatever you want. I have a doctorate in pharmacy, so I know what I'm talking about.