Doug wrote- >We hear so much about the free market being the paradigmatic system, but >at least in my eyes, the pharmasutical industry is an example of laissez >faire dysfunction. Take the ED stuff; Lavitra Cialis and Viagra for >instance. We have competing drug firms - good because this keeps prices >deflated, but bad not only because it stimulates duplication of effort, >but also because they fail to vigourously persue more important problems. > >This isn't a problem that keeps me up all night, but it is a tough nut to >crack. Is there a way to reinvigorate the industry without imposing rigid >reform? I wouldn't want to send congress off half-cocked in an attempt to >solidify the industry, but to keep limping along the way we are now seems >a recipe for meltdown.
I have to agree with Doug's premise. It would seem like drug companies could work on R&D together for a product and split the profits. Perhaps what will drive this is that insurers tend to "pick one" of the products to put in a formulary which means there could be a "loser". There also hasn't been a grand "loser" in a while (ie, something like Viagra came out and then 6 weeks later Cialis was released and it was "so much better/with fewer side effects" that the Viagra became obsolete before it made all the money it "should"). One "nit-picky" point, during my college days the statistic for impotence was that 40% of men over 40 are effected in some manner. Not an inconsequential number considering the population of men over 40 is increasing. That isn't to say I don't want more research on other conditions just thought it might put a bit of perspective on why ED drugs became an area that drug companies focused on. Dee _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
