How much money should big pharma make off a Vaccine developed with public funds?

[flips333]

I listened to this and found it fascinating given the world I come from.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is...avirus-vaccine

I believe that with something like this... something that is made with public money the amount of "Profit" drug companies can make off of public money should be limited.

[SiteWolf]

Several layers of problems

1.) Who is monitoring how they're spending the money they've already received?
For example, I used to be an accountant for the state and I know right now they have to have special coding to use to tag payments they're making using money received from Covid/CARES Act revenue, and it's pretty meticulous on how that has to be done. Are they doing that with non-government entities? HIGHLY doubt it.

2.) Since we can already safely assume whatever monitoring does get done will be overseen by people who will benefit directly and/or indirectly from their relationship with the pharma companies, we not only won't know how much those companies legitimately spend on vaccine development but won't know how much is being skimmed off or by who. In accounting there is something called separation of duties, designed to reduce the possibility of fraud...if the only people looking at transactions are also involved in the associated fraudulent activities, we many never really know it happened; the accounting equivalent of 'if a tree falls in a forest...'

3.) As far as profit, it is also safe to assume those same people will allow for 'normal' profit to be taken...in other words, not only will we pay those companies to develop and manufacture these vaccines, we'll pay again to ensure they receive 'normal' profits....even tho they may have already gotten some (see #2)

4.) Now, we have what 4 companies receiving federal money for this? One will be first to market...but likely we'll keep paying the others to continue as if there isn't one available.....with the same issues already mentioned going on there.

Too many hands out in situations that should result in hands up

[flips333]

Several layers of problems

1.) Who is monitoring how they're spending the money they've already received?
For example, I used to be an accountant for the state and I know right now they have to have special coding to use to tag payments they're making using money received from Covid/CARES Act revenue, and it's pretty meticulous on how that has to be done. Are they doing that with non-government entities? HIGHLY doubt it.

2.) Since we can already safely assume whatever monitoring does get done will be overseen by people who will benefit directly and/or indirectly from their relationship with the pharma companies, we not only won't know how much those companies legitimately spend on vaccine development but won't know how much is being skimmed off or by who. In accounting there is something called separation of duties, designed to reduce the possibility of fraud...if the only people looking at transactions are also involved in the associated fraudulent activities, we many never really know it happened; the accounting equivalent of 'if a tree falls in a forest...'

3.) As far as profit, it is also safe to assume those same people will allow for 'normal' profit to be taken...in other words, not only will we pay those companies to develop and manufacture these vaccines, we'll pay again to ensure they receive 'normal' profits....even tho they may have already gotten some (see #2)

4.) Now, we have what 4 companies receiving federal money for this? One will be first to market...but likely we'll keep paying the others to continue as if there isn't one available.....with the same issues already mentioned going on there.

Too many hands out in situations that should result in hands up

Wow that is alot of interesting knowledge that I don't have.Thanks.

[SiteWolf]

It would be similar/same with all those companies who were asked/directed/whatever to switch gears in their manufacturing facilities and start making PPE, ventilator parts, sanitizer, etc....only there it seems easier to justify ensuring they receive normal profits, given in most cases they were already losing normal revenue streams. Big pharma ain't losin' **** and they and their 'partners' in DC will make sure they never do.

I've had a book/movie script about this kinda thing rolling in my head for years...another something I seem to never get to because I have this thing in the way called a job.

[GGGGG-Men]

Several layers of problems

1.) Who is monitoring how they're spending the money they've already received?
For example, I used to be an accountant for the state and I know right now they have to have special coding to use to tag payments they're making using money received from Covid/CARES Act revenue, and it's pretty meticulous on how that has to be done. Are they doing that with non-government entities? HIGHLY doubt it.

2.) Since we can already safely assume whatever monitoring does get done will be overseen by people who will benefit directly and/or indirectly from their relationship with the pharma companies, we not only won't know how much those companies legitimately spend on vaccine development but won't know how much is being skimmed off or by who. In accounting there is something called separation of duties, designed to reduce the possibility of fraud...if the only people looking at transactions are also involved in the associated fraudulent activities, we many never really know it happened; the accounting equivalent of 'if a tree falls in a forest...'

3.) As far as profit, it is also safe to assume those same people will allow for 'normal' profit to be taken...in other words, not only will we pay those companies to develop and manufacture these vaccines, we'll pay again to ensure they receive 'normal' profits....even tho they may have already gotten some (see #2)

4.) Now, we have what 4 companies receiving federal money for this? One will be first to market...but likely we'll keep paying the others to continue as if there isn't one available.....with the same issues already mentioned going on there.

Too many hands out in situations that should result in hands up

Wow that’s incredibly insightful.

I feel like any ranting of what they should or shouldn’t do is just screaming into the void now. This is one of the businesses that owns this country and it’s politicians.

Yes they’re funded with our taxes for this vaccine but through government contracts, a lot of companies are from weaponry to subsidizing menu items at fast food restaurants through government check off programs (which gives us heart disease, diabetes, cancer and then we need Pharma so they profit and round and round we go).

This is at least of medical necessity. The issue we have again is there is no public healthcare system to distribute and no firm regulation on drug prices. There will be a 500% increase on the price over the value and they’ll profiteer off a pandemic and spend 30% of the profits on more congressional lobbying.

There should be a cap on any vaccine. Flu, Covid, whatever. Vaccines are a public safety issue. They can go profit off dick pills and heart medication, but at least leave this sector alone. But that’s an empty wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

The pharma companies will also argue that they should make the same money they would have made had they been developing drugs for themselves.

Profit is okay, but it should be minimal.

[flips333]

The pharma companies will also argue that they should make the same money they would have made had they been developing drugs for themselves.

Profit is okay, but it should be minimal.

Those are my feelings.

[SiteWolf]

The pharma companies will also argue that they should make the same money they would have made had they been developing drugs for themselves.

Profit is okay, but it should be minimal.

They will....they're wrong, but they will...however, I believe it will along the line of Medicare type profits...if so, at least a BIT less.

What a lot of people don't realize with pharma, too, is the fact they have for decades routinely priced their NEW drug high enough to fund research on their NEXT drug. On top of that having deals with the various insurance companies to push them. For example, I have Type 2 Diabetes. The first few years since I was diagnosed, I took the weekly shot Trulicity. I paid $25/mo but I know the 'retail' price is around $900/mo. I have no idea how much the insurance company actually pays. But, earlier this year I changed jobs and my new insurance company prefers a different shot. Matters not to them that I've now had several months of things like blurred vision while my body transitions, it's just the company they have the best deal with. So, while MY cost didn't change much, the 'retail' price of Victoza is 'only' around $750/mo.

Now, multiply scenarios like that hundreds of millions of times....and that doesn't even get into the Medicaid scenarios....and you start to see how big pharma has far too much power.

[SiteWolf]

Wow that’s incredibly insightful.

I feel like any ranting of what they should or shouldn’t do is just screaming into the void now. This is one of the businesses that owns this country and it’s politicians.

Yes they’re funded with our taxes for this vaccine but through government contracts, a lot of companies are from weaponry to subsidizing menu items at fast food restaurants through government check off programs (which gives us heart disease, diabetes, cancer and then we need Pharma so they profit and round and round we go).

This is at least of medical necessity. The issue we have again is there is no public healthcare system to distribute and no firm regulation on drug prices. There will be a 500% increase on the price over the value and they’ll profiteer off a pandemic and spend 30% of the profits on more congressional lobbying.

There should be a cap on any vaccine. Flu, Covid, whatever. Vaccines are a public safety issue. They can go profit off dick pills and heart medication, but at least leave this sector alone. But that’s an empty wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well I didn't mean to steal any of your fun!

and yeah, some of the same things I mentioned as fraud possibilities for big pharma? PALES in comparison to some of the same things happening with defense contracts

Again, separation of duties in accounting is a primary internal control requiring more than one person to complete portions of a task to prevent both fraud and error. However, if the only people completing a task AND the only people monitoring how the task is completed...are all 'in on it'...nobody is monitoring the monitors.

There's a fun old movie called Remo Williams where a defense contractor is building a satellite, but keeps getting additional funds for 'cost overruns' even though they have never actually even really been building the satellite....millions of dollars received and the officials 'monitoring' it are getting kickbacks.....only to have a fire destroy their 'work'....millions more in insurance. The movie was fiction, that scenario unfortunately does play out.

[flips333]

They will....they're wrong, but they will...however, I believe it will along the line of Medicare type profits...if so, at least a BIT less.

What a lot of people don't realize with pharma, too, is the fact they have for decades routinely priced their NEW drug high enough to fund research on their NEXT drug. On top of that having deals with the various insurance companies to push them. For example, I have Type 2 Diabetes. The first few years since I was diagnosed, I took the weekly shot Trulicity. I paid $25/mo but I know the 'retail' price is around $900/mo. I have no idea how much the insurance company actually pays. But, earlier this year I changed jobs and my new insurance company prefers a different shot. Matters not to them that I've now had several months of things like blurred vision while my body transitions, it's just the company they have the best deal with. So, while MY cost didn't change much, the 'retail' price of Victoza is 'only' around $750/mo.

Now, multiply scenarios like that hundreds of millions of times....and that doesn't even get into the Medicaid scenarios....and you start to see how big pharma has far too much power.

single payer?

[SiteWolf]

single payer?

no, it's actually Blue Cross

I WAS on a self-supported system while with the state...

[valade16]

The answer to how much profit should Pharma companies make for vaccines developed with public funds is less than they're about to.

[Crovash]

The answer to how much profit should Pharma companies make for vaccines developed with public funds is less than they're about to.

Or that they believed they are owed.

[nastynice]

I dont mind if they profit, but whatever percentage of their funding is public money that percent of profit needs to go back into public tax money pool. So if half was public funded, then should get half (or maybe less) back as return on investment.

Pharma still wins, but tax payers get to win too.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[SiteWolf]

I dont mind if they profit, but whatever percentage of their funding is public money that percent of profit needs to go back into public tax money pool. So if half was public funded, then should get half (or maybe less) back as return on investment.

Pharma still wins, but tax payers get to win too.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

well, they have more control on setting the price....and the public/gov't is who they're selling to...so there's no giving money back, there's only how much do we agree to pay them...........and since it's a vaccine literally intended to save lives and more taxpayer money, they have the gov't by the short hairs