[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: your mail

  No one has any good data on pre-clinical investments, Not Pharma, Not
  DiMasi... DiMasi' own paper indicated that they used some heroic
  assumptions to get thier numbers for the pre-clinical work, and of course,
  much of this is subsidized by the U.S. government, at least for certain
  types of diseases.  There is pretty good data on the clinical
  expenditures, One fact is that there is a high variance in costs between
  drugs, in terms of the clinical cost... as you may recall, in the DiMasi
  paper, there was a large difference between the mean and the median (I
  recall the mean was around $20.4 and median was about 12.5, before
  adjustements for *risk* or capital costs). 
  On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Joel Lexchin wrote:
  > Figures that are in a Canadian publication on U.S. pharmaceutical R&D state
  > that basic research and pre-clinical testing accounted for 47.5%, clinical
  > for 28.4% and "other" for 24.1% of total R&D.  (These figures are from
  > PhRMA for 1988.)  The figures in the DiMasi paper (Journal of Health
  > Economic 1991;10:107-142), including opportunity costs, are $164.5 million
                                  including "risk" adjustments too!
  > for preclinical costs and long-term and other animal testing and $66.3
  > million for clinical testing or 71% for preclinical R&D and 29% for
  > clini0cal R&D.
  > Can anyone confirm that the PhRMA figures are accurate?  What would the
  > "other" include?  Can the PhRMA figures be reconciled with the DiMasi ones?
  > Thanks for any help.
  > Joel Lexchin
  > Joel Lexchin MD
  > 121 Walmer Rd.
  > Toronto, Ontario
  > CANADA M5R 2X8
  > Phone:  (416)-964-7186
  > Fax:  (416)-923-9515
  James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
  Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176
  Center for Study of Responsive Law
     Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt
     Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org