I must take issue with the "$2.6 billion to create a new drug" statement.<p>This is an extremely controversial figure within the pharmacoeconomic literature.<p>It comes from a publication by the Tufts centre for drug development, who are heavily pharma-funded, and it is repeated verbatim by those with vested interests in the pharma industry.<p>More on this here:
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/18/does-it-really-cost-2-6-billion-to-develop-a-new-drug/?utm_term=.d52e7cdc88e9" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/18/does-...</a>
I don't think most people know the actual costs to R&D, market, develop, etc of new drugs. They just complain that their new anti-cholesterol or anti-depressant costs $300 (at least before the insurance kicks in).<p>But many consumers don't do their research. Most new patented drugs aren't much more effective than numerous generics that would cost a few dollars. It doesn't help that doctors seem to be bribed to prescribe the newer ones.<p>I do feel bad for those people on experimental cancer or other life-saving drugs who have no other options. But that is capitalism.<p>What really bothers me, though, is the generic market is completely fraudulent, so much that apparently the US Government is filing a lawsuit against numerous manufacturers.<p>The one drug I need costs me almost $150 / month out of pocket. Its patent expired before I was even born, and I've purchased it in Europe for about $20 without even needing a prescription.<p>* <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/generic-drug-lawsuit-massive-fraud-an-attack-on-the-american-people-connecticut-attorney-general-says/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/generic-drug-lawsuit-massive-fr...</a>