Brexit

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

As pointed out elsewhere the terms of a trade deal would likely seek to make regulation more favourable to American drug and healthcare companies. They won't seek to make the NHS disappear but they will want to protect their interests and maximise profits for the contracts they seek. There are all sorts of things they might push for, most of which I don't really understand to do with how contracts for medicines are made, but a lack of regulation in favour of private business is unlikely to benefit us as taxpayers or patients.

Any regulations would be the SAME as for ANY company from ANYWHERE in the world. They would be operating in this country and would therefore be classed as a UK company. It is the EU that goes around insisting on common regulations in order to make everything as expensive as in Germany.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any regulations would be the SAME as for ANY company from ANYWHERE in the world. They would be operating in this country and would therefore be classed as a UK company. It is the EU that goes around insisting on common regulations in order to make everything as expensive as in Germany.

We're talking about a trade deal with the US in which they would request tailored regulation.

Several posts removed.More will follow unless they are on topic and not pot shots at others.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Angua

How the US trade deal undermined Australia’s PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).

Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is one of the few pieces of national public health policy with unquestioned democratic legitimacy. It was established by the vote of a majority of citizens in a majority of states in a referendum in the late 1940s.

Sound unfamiliar?


Pharmaceuticals have come a long way and expanded enormously since then. The costs of developing them has increased more than exponentially since then.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Sound unfamiliar?


Pharmaceuticals have come a long way and expanded enormously since then. The costs of developing them has increased more than exponentially since then.

Drug company profits have increased exponentially too.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Sound unfamiliar?


Pharmaceuticals have come a long way and expanded enormously since then. The costs of developing them has increased more than exponentially since then.

At the end of last year, over14 Pharma companies posted over $1 billion dollars in profit (that's after all expenses, including the large (up to 15%) R&D budgets).

Here are the 14 pharma companies that posted at least a $1 billion profit:

1. Pfizer ($4.1 billion)

2. Johnson & Johnson ($3.9 billion)

3. AbbVie ($2.75 billion)

4. Sanofi ($2.59 billion)

5. Gilead ($2.1 billion)

6. Merck ($1.95 billion)

7. Bristol Myers-Squibb ($1.9 billion)

8. Amgen ($1.86 billion)

9. GlaxoSmithKline ($1.84 billion)

10. Novartis ($1.62 billion)

11. Biogen ($1.44 billion)

12. Novo Nordisk ($1.38 billion)

13. Eli Lilly ($1.15 billion)

https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...s-over-1b.html

Historically, profits have risen.

Some interesting facts from Fortune magazine - http://fortune.com/2019/03/01/drug-c...es-rd-profits/

As a result, even with major R&D spending, pharmaceutical companies remain highly profitable.

They have the tenth highest average after-tax profit levels of more than 100 different industries. And according to figures from Axios, while drug companies bring in 23% of health care’s U.S. revenue, they make 63% of the total profits.

(I will declare an interest - my brother-in-law has worked for Big Pharma/Biotech* for the last 26 years, after his 10 years in Academia).

*Pfizer, Teva, Regeneron (joint R&D with Sanofi)

[Pierre]

Maggie saw it coming.

https://www.facebook.com/thegrocerda...99&v=e&sfns=mo

[Sephiroth]

All the recent forgoing has little/nothing to do with Brexit.


What matters is that the direct democracy referendum instituted by the indirect democracy parliament is respected by the latter.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

All the recent forgoing has little/nothing to do with Brexit.

What matters is that the direct democracy referendum instituted by the indirect democracy parliament is respected by the latter.

It is important that the referendum is respected because if it isn’t, it will be very hard to resolve anything else via a referendum in the future. And also because both main parties went into the last election explicitly promising to respect and implement the result.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

At the end of last year, over14 Pharma companies posted over $1 billion dollars in profit (that's after all expenses, including the large (up to 15%) R&D budgets).



https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...s-over-1b.html

Historically, profits have risen.

Some interesting facts from Fortune magazine - http://fortune.com/2019/03/01/drug-c...es-rd-profits/

(I will declare an interest - my brother-in-law has worked for Big Pharma/Biotech* for the last 26 years, after his 10 years in Academia).

*Pfizer, Teva, Regeneron (joint R&D with Sanofi)

Looking at Pfizer's financial report, and the profits can vary enormously from year to year. Those profits are taxed and provide income for pension schemes.



Divide those profits by the quantities produced to assess how much cheaper a product might be.

My bro-in-law’s (future) pension (one of a few) is with Pfizer (he spent 12 years there as a Research Director and Research VP), and he is very happy with their consistently good profits, as they feed into his pension.

Your point doesn’t diminish the fact that the profit margins in Pharma are consistently higher than most businesses, even considering the R&D (which reduces tax) and pension contributions (which reduces tax).

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

All the recent forgoing has little/nothing to do with Brexit.


What matters is that the direct democracy referendum instituted by the indirect democracy parliament is respected by the latter.

I think the leverage the US would have if we entered into trade negotiations with them having not yet secured any other trade deal is a good argument to square of a deal with the EU first.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the leverage the US would have if we entered into trade negotiations with them having not yet secured any other trade deal is a good argument to square of a deal with the EU first.

The EU is our biggest market so our biggest priority. Other countries will need to know what deal we have with them before signing a deal with us.
I still think if Boris comes in, he could be the one to keep on kicking Brexit down the road, a road akin to the M25 in shape!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The EU is our biggest market so our biggest priority. Other countries will need to know what deal we have with them before signing a deal with us.
I still think if Boris comes in, he could be the one to keep on kicking Brexit down the road, a road akin to the M25 in shape!

Brexit is not all about which is our biggest market. It is also about sovereignty. Once we have regained that, we can pay attention to trade deals. In the meantime, life will carry on and good will pass between the EU and the UK.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Brexit is not all about which is our biggest market. It is also about sovereignty. Once we have regained that, we can pay attention to trade deals. In the meantime, life will carry on and good will pass between the EU and the UK.

I didn't define Brexit, I just stated our obvious top priority in terms of trade. Anyway, we have a bit of breathing space as Brexit is unlikely to happen in October anyway.