Great Job Novartis for Screwing Cancer Patients

Non liquet.

 

Only to those who have zero understanding of accounting, finance, and capital budgeting.

 

why is a 5-10% margin not good enough?

 

Gross margin? Net margin? How much of the retained earnings go into capital budget projects?

5-10% won't get you far in this industry. But go ahead and run a company and see how it works out.

 

why not net margin?

why not let company owners decide how those retained earnings get spent?

why not incentivize industrial innovation by dis-incentivizing monopoly formation?

why not 5-7 year patent cycles without the evergreening?

 

Because much of what you described is fascism. When it comes to economics fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. It's not the overt state operation of business, but the implicit steering of business owners into what political leaders view as the national best interest.

 

I got news for ya. I think we're already there.

 

we are there. hail corporate !

 

+1 for describing the features of fascism in two sentences.

is there something else you want to add to the previous discussion?

 

Don't divert. It's a sign of an exhausted argument.

Tell me who gets to decide how a business should be run? Because obviously you don't think the shareholders get a say at all. And they carry the greatest risk. They stand at the back of the line, after external customers, creditors, and the government. Management has an obligation to deliver an expected return on investment. If they don't, shareholders sell.

 

i would trust your worldview accommodates the roles business, the market and government serve in the greater context -- society.

shareholders are just one cross-section of business and the market within a sub-section of society, and their interests will naturally compete and intersect with those of non-shareholders. how that plays out we call politics, and you are not that naive to believe the political pendulum swings solely from the center to the right.

are you?

 

What rubbish!!!
All too much of "government" is OWNED by business and business interest lobby groups.
Money doesn't "talk", it Screams.
Government "steering" business??????
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
More Libertarian conspiracy and self-centered babble.
You actually work in this industry (or any other industry)????
We're not the local bagel shop you know....we make (pay) things happen in our own interests...no matter what the societal costs...it's all about them bucks..
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Poor asbestos industry...stifled by the evil central government.
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Pharma is no better (all too often).

 

Hey, save some caps for the rest of us.

 

The present-day method of drug pricing has the benefit of simplicity. Manufacturers charge whatever they want. But the problem is obvious: excessively high prices that defy market forces. For example, in today’s dollars Novartis charged $4,540 for a month of the leukemia drug Gleevec as recently as 2001, but now it costs $8,500 in the United States, even though it is just $4,500 and $3,300 a month in Germany and France, respectively. I didn’t cherry-pick this example. Cancer-drug prices in the U.S. are up more than fourfold in the past two decades, after adjustment for inflation.

https://hbr.org/2015/10/a-new-way-to-define-value-in-drug-pricing

Prices for specialty drugs in the United States are out of control, with spending rising much faster than in many other health care domains. Some state Medicaid programs have been driven to the brink by the cost of new drugs for diseases such as hepatitis C, for which 12 weeks of treatment with Sovaldi can cost nearly $100,000.

Many people are cheering a new potential solution: paying for drugs according to how well they actually work. This commonsense idea comes in a few flavors, which I’ll discuss later, but the underlying principles are the same. A drug that works is worth something; one that doesn’t is not. If a new drug works no better than an older one, the two have equal worth. If a drug costs a lot, that’s OK only if it makes people so healthy that it reduces their spending on other forms of health care.

This all sounds like a move toward paying smarter or, in health care lingo, “paying for value.” But one big problem plagues a lot of these (and other) ideas in health care: They just don’t scale. In a vacuum, a particular idea might work for a specific drug, but only if it focuses on isolated factors and ignores the long-term context of treatment, different types of treatment, and multiple (often subjective) aspects of value.

Before I unpack the flaws of existing drug-pricing proposals, let me share a prototype that my colleagues and I at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center developed. It’s an interactive drug-pricing tool — the DrugAbacus — that integrates objective information about cancer drugs while empowering users to define what value means to them.

...

 

Copy, paste. Copy, paste. Step in time, step in time.

 

Did you report these adverse reactions to the FDA? Need help?

 

The sweet smell of money causes an intoxication that can be fatal to others.

 

Targeting Human Cancer by a Glycosaminoglycan Binding Malaria Protein
http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108(15)00334-7

 

But not you, not government... You and government are both the sole proprietors of PURE INTENTIONS and GOOD DEEDS. Only through total, top-down, government control can we achieve Utopia, where profits are erased and we are all made equal. Because, government is immune to the "intoxication" of money, don't ta know? So lets give government TOTAL CONTROL OF EVERYTHING!!!