• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I think many people dramatically overestimate how profitable drug companies are. The average net profit for a brand-name drug manufacturer is actually less than 30% (source). They’re about as profitable as tech companies.

    That’s still quite profitable, but I suspect that if you were to limit them to 30% net profits on their most successful blockbuster drugs, their overall net profits (which have to compensate for the R&D that goes into failed drugs) might not even be positive.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why should drug companies be profitable at all? Seems like the perfect thing to be nationalized and/or even considered a basic necessity.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Governments do have the option of simply buying the patent from the drug company (no communism necessary) but Americans have rejected socialized medicine for Americans. I don’t expect that they would want to subsidize medicine for poor Africans.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think access to certain drugs that deeply impact the public health should be capped in the name of national security. Vaccines for AIDS, Flu, COVID-19, H1-N1, HPV, etc. and things like insulin, should be freely available to the public. Let the firms make money off of the thousands of other meds they push.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        In that scenario, why would drug companies bother to develop drugs that deeply impart public health? They already prioritize drugs for smaller numbers of rich people rather than drugs for larger numbers of poor people (e.g. antibiotics). If they can’t make a large profit off of developing an AIDS vaccine, they’re going to work on something like weight-loss drugs instead.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Except the majority of the cutting edge R&D is done and/or funded via the public sector.

      Their R&D budget priorities are more focused on things like reformulating existing drugs to extend the patents and prevent opening the market to generic manufacturers.

      So yes, cheating patent laws and heavily spending on marketing and lobbying campaigns does eat into their profit margins a little bit.

      But I’m not sure how that justifies their unparalleled track record of pathologically sadistic business practices, such as the one highlighted in this article.

      Do you have a graph or chart for that?