Like your thinking. We need to keep the patient needs front and center. At times we are so distant from them that we forget what they need, and what it is really like to be them. Very importantly we need to understand the role we play when we put ourselves between the patient and the doctor. We do this by conducting patient needs analysis and then re-packaging the information back tot he doctor. Very often I have seen the information gets filtered to suit our own needs, we need to stop doing this.

We should support more patient groups to do more research among their patient population and empower them. We cannot access this information for all the obvious reasons. Let the patient groups get better armed with information and provide it to us. That is true transparency/collaboration.

We need to stop being us (pharma and doctors) versus them (patients)…

We could get on the right path of re-establishing trust and improving the public perception of the industry and health care over all.

Anyway, I’m sure companies would prefer a one-price policy but, like sampling, dtca and enforcement of certain provisions in wholesaler contracts that would decrease drug diversion, taking a leadership position can put the company at a severe competitive disadvantage.

I like your thinking, Pharma/Pharmacist.

Based on the mention of “spread” and “Medicare”, you may have misinterpreted Pharma/Pharmacists point around pricing. I think he was talking about the practice of setting an artificially high AWP for a product and selling it at a much lower price. Given my understanding of your industry knowledge, you are already aware that this incents the provider to choose the product based on the profits generated by the large spread. Of course, you are also aware that new reimbursement practices based on ASP rather than AWP have eliminated this practice in Medicare Part B.

Atlex

Pharma/Pharmacist, the only point with which I disagree is differential pricing. Although it has political repurcussions, it is the most efficient way to achieve both societal goals of welfare improvement. A single global price, for example, would be too low to generate cash flow and operating margins to sustain R & D and too high for the least developed geographic markets. Regional price convergence is occuring due to transparency and the EURO and some price concessions are being implemented but I don’t think a single price is desirable. Within the US, I don’t see a way to move away from price discrimination among customer segments unless Medicare moves to a reference pricing system, which I think is unlikely since attempts would re-open the entire law.

To give you an idea of the “hopelessness” that most scientists see for the future of this industry: I have yet to meet a single scientists in industry who would encourage their kids to enter this profession. It’s not going to last. As it currently stands, I don’t see how my children’s generation will have any sort of pharmaceutical innovation taking place.

In the big picture, governments and their constituents are demanding improvements in cost and safety. In spite of what FPME would like us to believe, you can’t improve both simultaneously. Given our current technology, development costs (price) and safety are completely dependent on one another. I believe that society’s demands both to improve both simultaneously is causing the entire system we have to slowly implode.

In the auto industry, when safety improvements are mandated by the government, the auto industry simply raises the price to accommodate the new demands. In the pharma industry, we are rapidly loosing our ability to increase prices to accommodate new demands. Sooner or later, it just won’t be economically feasible to develop new drugs — and this business will dissolve completely.