Jump to content
Barry Fish

General News Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lad said:

I don't care what your ISP says 

it's what your email address says, twinkle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

can you give a little detail? Company place in the market, what's being developed, etc?

 

Unfortunately I think the answer to that is no. Broad strokes, smallish UK based company doing stem cell research for big US multinationals, producing the products for clinical trials.

From Labour's Medicines for Many.

"The public sector plays a substantial role in the health innovation landscape by 
investing in biomedical science and innovation. The government builds on the strength 
of the UK’s academic life sciences base by directly funding a network of institutions 
which support the medical innovation of researchers and companies, spending £2.4bn 
on health-focused R&D in 2015.xxviii This sits alongside annual medical research funding 
from medical charities of £1.3bn,xxix and private sector spend on pharmaceutical R&D 
totalling £4.3bn.xxx"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh, that's a bit different from what I found (quoted below cos it's lost on the last page). I'd be interested to know which govt org is doing that extra funding, as it's outside the main body for it.

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Found them.

"industry" has £2.1M out of £743M of govt medical research money 

https://mrc.ukri.org/research/funded-research/recipients-of-funding/

(you have to download an excel file and sort it & add-up to get the values).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Unfortunately I think the answer to that is no. Broad strokes, smallish UK based company doing stem cell research for big US multinationals, producing the products for clinical trials.

From Labour's Medicines for Many.

"The public sector plays a substantial role in the health innovation landscape by 
investing in biomedical science and innovation. The government builds on the strength 
of the UK’s academic life sciences base by directly funding a network of institutions 
which support the medical innovation of researchers and companies, spending £2.4bn 
on health-focused R&D in 2015.xxviii This sits alongside annual medical research funding 
from medical charities of £1.3bn,xxix and private sector spend on pharmaceutical R&D 
totalling £4.3bn.xxx"

Just checked the source for that final claim, available here:-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/bulletins/ukgrossdomesticexpenditureonresearchanddevelopment/2017

Those numbers appear to be for all research in any sector, not just medical..

"covering the full spectrum of academic disciplines from the medical and biological sciences to the arts and humanities"

(I haven't read in depth, I might be mistaken)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

ahh, that's a bit different from what I found (quoted below cos it's lost on the last page). I'd be interested to know which govt org is doing that extra funding, as it's outside the main body for it.

 

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is responsible for the majority 
of government investment in research, which it funds principally through its research councils, 
Innovate UK and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Around a third of 
public funding for research comes from other departments.xli From April 2018, a new body, UK 
Research and Innovation (UKRI), brought together the seven research councils including the 
Medical Research Council, Innovate UK and the research functions of HEFCE. UKRI is accountable 
to BEIS."

Is all I can find, again from Medicine for Many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's what your email address says, twinkle.

A moody email from years ago.😂😂

It's not me and its nothing to do with me.

Put your money where your mouth is.

2+2=5.😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(I haven't read in depth, I might be mistaken)

doh, I am mistaken. That doc says £4.3Bn is spent on "pharmaceuticals".

That's probably not solely human-medical, tho I'd guess the vast majority was.

Fair enough, those Labour numbers seem correct.

However, the very small proportion of 'industry' in the MRC total suggests it's not likely to be a huge chunk of the other bits of money.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Found them.

"industry" has £2.1M out of £743M of govt medical research money 

https://mrc.ukri.org/research/funded-research/recipients-of-funding/

(you have to download an excel file and sort it & add-up to get the values).

 

 

I just don't get how they think the policy will work without devastating UK pharma.

The industry spends a lot on R&D across many countries and has to recoup that once it starts selling (e.g. for products that don't work, testing, etc).  By allowing a generic production, then it will limit the revenue it can generate, so why would it invest in the UK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gary1979666 said:

I just don't get how they think the policy will work without devastating UK pharma.

yup. That's pretty much my take on it too. :( 

I suspect that some are looking at making plans to leave the UK following the announcement the other day. Why take the risk by staying? 

(I'm not saying they will actually leave. Planning will take time, and Labour might have a new leader who takes that worry away).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yup. That's pretty much my take on it too. :( 

I suspect that some are looking at making plans to leave the UK following the announcement the other day. Why take the risk by staying? 

(I'm not saying they will actually leave. Planning will take time, and Labour might have a new leader who takes that worry away).

But as I linked a few days ago, Warren and Biden are planning similar policies. Will they leave the US as well if they get in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zahidf said:

But as I linked a few days ago, Warren and Biden are planning similar policies. Will they leave the US as well if they get in?

they might do. They have the whole world to choose from, and plenty of high-infrastructure countries would welcome them with open arms.

But anyway, nothing of Labour's policy is dependent of the Dems in the USA. If it was a plan that said "we'll work together with the USA to achieve this..." it would be a different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

they might do. They have the whole world to choose from, and plenty of high-infrastructure countries would welcome them with open arms.

But anyway, nothing of Labour's policy is dependent of the Dems in the USA. If it was a plan that said "we'll work together with the USA to achieve this..." it would be a different thing.

The US and NHS are their bigger markets. I doubt very much they'd abandon them over this. They'd work some arrangement out.

Well, if there is a Jez PM and Bernie presidency, I expect their to be quite a bit of cooperation. Even with Warren and Jez over some issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But as I linked a few days ago, Warren and Biden are planning similar policies. Will they leave the US as well if they get in?


While under-used, the US government holds ‘march-in’ rights under the Bayh-Dole 
Act on the innovations it funds, allowing it to retake control of technologies if they are 
not made available on ‘reasonable grounds’. In 2016, 51 members of Congress urged the US government to use these march-in rights to authorise the generic production 
of expensive medicines by activating these rights on products developed with public 
funds.cxx
 

Also from Medicines for the Many

Edited by mcshed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I just don't get how they think the policy will work without devastating UK pharma.

The industry spends a lot on R&D across many countries and has to recoup that once it starts selling (e.g. for products that don't work, testing, etc).  By allowing a generic production, then it will limit the revenue it can generate, so why would it invest in the UK. 

 

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yup. That's pretty much my take on it too. :( 

I suspect that some are looking at making plans to leave the UK following the announcement the other day. Why take the risk by staying? 

(I'm not saying they will actually leave. Planning will take time, and Labour might have a new leader who takes that worry away).

Some would leave some would stay, are the cheaper medicines worth it? It's it right that our Government stands idly-by for the worst excesses of big-pharma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The US and NHS are their bigger markets. I doubt very much they'd abandon them over this. They'd work some arrangement out.

there's a bit of a logic problem with the argument there.

It's not a win for the UK if the NHS refuses to buy the drugs it needs for its patients. ;) 

16 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well, if there is a Jez PM and Bernie presidency, I expect their to be quite a bit of cooperation. Even with Warren and Jez over some issues.

it would certainly help with any of these (in today's terms) extreme policies if both could get them past their legislatures.

Unfortunately I think it's probably the case that there'd be pretty limited occasions both got thru an extreme policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mcshed said:

 

Some would leave some would stay, are the cheaper medicines worth it? It's it right that our Government stands idly-by for the worst excesses of big-pharma?

Thing is if, say, AZ invest £1bn in a drug and need a price of 50p/dose to recoup that, but actual production costs are only 2p/dose.  They are not going to give away the recipe m,eaning they can't cover their costs.  The funding from the government is not going to cover this gap. 

Why would any pharma company stay for this?  The NHS would need to import these medicines instead and probably pay more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mcshed said:

expensive medicines

why are some medicines hugely expensive?

It's because the development costs of any working drug is massive (when the costs of the failed drugs are included), and the market for that drug is small because there's not many with the condition it treats.

If the drug companies are going to be getting back the development costs, they won't be developing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Thing is if, say, AZ invest £1bn in a drug and need a price of 50p/dose to recoup that, but actual production costs are only 2p/dose.  They are not going to give away the recipe m,eaning they can't cover their costs.  The funding from the government is not going to cover this gap. 

Why would any pharma company stay for this?  The NHS would need to import these medicines instead and probably pay more.

Because this company is welcome to sell at 50p a dose elsewhere, the government will only be making it for the NHS. If they need to sell it at 50p a dose to cover the costs then they'll be selling it a £1 a dose to line their pockets, that's the problem we're dealing with. Obviously companies need to cover R&D costs they don't need to hold patients to ransom to pay juicy dividends to investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mcshed said:

 

Some would leave some would stay, are the cheaper medicines worth it? It's it right that our Government stands idly-by for the worst excesses of big-pharma?

There's probably more than one way to skin the Pharma companies, if they really need skinning. 

What are you saying 'the worst excesses' are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mcshed said:

If they need to sell it at 50p a dose to cover the costs then they'll be selling it a £1 a dose to line their pockets, that's the problem we're dealing with. Obviously companies need to cover R&D costs they don't need to hold patients to ransom to pay juicy dividends to investors.

the facts say not. Dividend yield is less than 5%.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcshed said:

Because this company is welcome to sell at 50p a dose elsewhere, the government will only be making it for the NHS. If they need to sell it at 50p a dose to cover the costs then they'll be selling it a £1 a dose to line their pockets, that's the problem we're dealing with. Obviously companies need to cover R&D costs they don't need to hold patients to ransom to pay juicy dividends to investors.

That's how investment works though.  If an investor doesn't get a good return, then why would they invest, when they can get a better return potentially elsewhere.

AZ investors got back 13% of the revenue as a divi last year - is that fair, who's to say.  They are taking the risks of putting their money into this company. 

If I have a product, I want to make back the money I have spent on it.  Then I want a bit more money to have made the whole thing worthwhile, otherwise, why bother in the first place.  If someone then tells me that I can't do this in one market, then why would I go there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

That's how investment works though.  If an investor doesn't get a good return, then why would they invest, when they can get a better return potentially elsewhere.

AZ investors got back 13% of the revenue as a divi last year - is that fair, who's to say.  They are taking the risks of putting their money into this company. 

If I have a product, I want to make back the money I have spent on it.  Then I want a bit more money to have made the whole thing worthwhile, otherwise, why bother in the first place.  If someone then tells me that I can't do this in one market, then why would I go there?

Do you not think that healthcare shouldn't be open to rampant profiteering at the expense of patients lives. These principles are absolutely fine if you are innovating in the world of fancy TVs as people will not pay if you over charge them, if you have a potentially life saving drug the is upper limit on what someone will pay is anything they can. This is the sort of thing we have Government for to step in and stop.

Who says what is a fair return? Why the government of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's probably more than one way to skin the Pharma companies, if they really need skinning. 

What are you saying 'the worst excesses' are?

Perhaps the hope is that by threatening these measures the big drug companies will come up with an offer to reduce prices to the NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's probably more than one way to skin the Pharma companies, if they really need skinning. 

What are you saying 'the worst excesses' are?

Profiteering, by over pricing, by unreasonably extending patents, by spending more on marketing than R&D, the big companies outsourcing the risk of R&D by buying up successful smaller companies and any patents they have rather than spend that money on R&D itself, yet still demanding huge profits whilst mitigating the risks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Perhaps the hope is that by threatening these measures the big drug companies will come up with an offer to reduce prices to the NHS.

i'd say that's a very high stakes game to be playing.

These are international companies. The world is their oyster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...