Dark Side of Pharmacy

[Sparda29]

So has anyone been tempted by the "dark side" of pharmacy, such as joining drug companies and insurance companies? My professor right now has been telling us not to be afraid of the dark side, I think I'm getting tempted.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmaTope]

so exactly what would a pharmacist do in an insurance company? i really dont see what a pharmacist would do. a friend of mine is a physician who reviews claims. i can understand physician but pharmacist doesnt make much sense.

 

[Priapism321]

so exactly what would a pharmacist do in an insurance company? i really dont see what a pharmacist would do. a friend of mine is a physician who reviews claims. i can understand physician but pharmacist doesnt make much sense.

Ummmmmm, have you heard of the word formulary?

 

[Priapism321]

so exactly what would a pharmacist do in an insurance company? i really dont see what a pharmacist would do. a friend of mine is a physician who reviews claims. i can understand physician but pharmacist doesnt make much sense.

And, it would not be unheard of for a Pharmacist to review claims either. Most insurance companies have policies and evidence based algorithms in place that determine most therapeutic coverage controversies. It makes me wonder about your actual knowledge base if this seems totally "out there" to you.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Honestly, I have nothing against pharmacoeconomics types working for insurance companies. Someone has to say "no" when a physician prescribes something idiotic like Xopenex or Xyzal. Could you imagine how much more drug costs would be if physicians were given carte blanche to every me-too drug that ever existed? Good gawd.

 

[fenixtnlfan]

Here's a couple of general papers about the topic from APhA. PBMs and Managed Care
There's also a whole organization for these pharmacists: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
I know there's a quite a few internships and residencies out there for that career path.

The clinical side of managed care seems interesting, but I'm not interested in the business side. Too evil for my tastes

 

[Vitamin K]

so exactly what would a pharmacist do in an insurance company? i really dont see what a pharmacist would do. a friend of mine is a physician who reviews claims. i can understand physician but pharmacist doesnt make much sense.

P&T Committee. They have pharmacists who help make decisions about which drugs should/should not be included, prior auth criteria, etc.

 

[Priapism321]

Or, a Pharmacist may run the damn operation.....

http://www.rxamerica.com/about_us_exec_team.html#johnG

 

[confettiflyer]

P&T Committee. They have pharmacists who help make decisions about which drugs should/should not be included, prior auth criteria, etc.

This is correct. Running a P&T committee without pharmacists (when you have them around) doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[genesis09]

I'm doing a rotation at Caremark. The department I'm at sends out faxes to physicians when they think a drug is missing from the treatment, drug should be d/c, or compliance issues.

 

[JamesL1585]

And, it would not be unheard of for a Pharmacist to review claims either. Most insurance companies have policies and evidence based algorithms in place that determine most therapeutic coverage controversies. It makes me wonder about your actual knowledge base if this seems totally "out there" to you.

I didn't know that either. I guess you question my knowledge base too... Oh well.. life goes on

 

[bigpharmD]

I'm doing a rotation at Caremark. The department I'm at sends out faxes to physicians when they think a drug is missing from the treatment, drug should be d/c, or compliance issues.

boy i bet the physicians love that

 

[MountainPharmD]

In about six months I plan on crossing over to the dark side.

Someone needs to save us from idiot Doctos who write for Pristique, Pexeva, Xyzal, Zegrid and the like.

I have a friend who makes for a GPO (group purchasing organization). The company VP's are all pharmacists.

Lots of non-retail stuff out there...you just have look.

 

[MountainPharmD]

boy i bet the physicians love that

Someone needs to pay attention....since the insurance company is footing the bills it might as well be them....

 

[Priapism321]

I didn't know that either. I guess you question my knowledge base too... Oh well.. life goes on

You're a student, no questioning necessary.....and life still goes on.

 

[Priapism321]

In about six months I plan on crossing over to the dark side.

Someone needs to save us from idiot Doctos who write for Pristique, Pexeva, Xyzal, Zegrid and the like.

I have a friend who makes for a GPO (group purchasing organization). The company VP's are all pharmacists.

Lots of non-retail stuff out there...you just have look.

This would be a switch to the "rational side" as opposed to the "dark side" in my book. They people who try to pawn this **** off as innovation for a living represent the dark side.

 

[meister]

Honestly, I have nothing against pharmacoeconomics types working for insurance companies. Someone has to say "no" when a physician prescribes something idiotic like Xopenex or Xyzal. Could you imagine how much more drug costs would be if physicians were given carte blanche to every me-too drug that ever existed? Good gawd.

Or better yet how much less drug costs would be if they were actually lowered from the stratosphere down to acceptable levels?

I mean you say Xopenex is a waste of money but isn't it obvious that there is no reason for it to cost 10x more than neb albuterol? It's totally arbitrary.

 

[Vitamin K]

Or better yet how much less drug costs would be if they were actually lowered from the stratosphere down to acceptable levels?

I mean you say Xopenex is a waste of money but isn't it obvious that there is no reason for it to cost 10x more than neb albuterol? It's totally arbitrary.

Brand drugs are definitely expensive, but I personally have no problem with drug companies turning a profit. If drugs weren't profitable, where would money come from for new drug development?? Can't expect them to sell at cost...

 

[pharmacyanalyst]

There are a TON of opportunities in managed care- P&T, pharma rebate contracting, MTM, clinical programs.. you can't beat 8-5, holidays off, great salary and benefits...

 

[pharmacyanalyst]

Brand drugs are definitely expensive, but I personally have no problem with drug companies turning a profit. If drugs weren't profitable, where would money come from for new drug development?? Can't expect them to sell at cost...

I agree- plus the cost of litigation for all the patent challenges not to mention the money they sink into developing drugs that never make it to market. They have to recoup their costs somehow.

 

[meister]

Drug companies do much, much more than simply "turn a profit." I know former drug reps, many of them detail to me how the drug companies have to look for ways to lose money so their profits aren't too extravagant. That's just how it is.

WVU's right about Xopenex and Xyzal for the most part though. But I just wanted to point out that drug prices aren't exactly set by any sort of free market and that patients often get screwed over in the name of profits.

 

[Argentium]

Drug companies do much, much more than simply "turn a profit." I know former drug reps, many of them detail to me how the drug companies have to look for ways to lose money so their profits aren't too extravagant. That's just how it is.

WVU's right about Xopenex and Xyzal for the most part though. But I just wanted to point out that drug prices aren't exactly set by any sort of free market and that patients often get screwed over in the name of profits.

Pharma has one of the biggest profit margins of any industry. I thought this picture was interesting -

​

 

[meister]

And keep in mind that they actively seek money losers so that their profits aren't too crazy. You won't see me crying for drug companies, ever.

 

[JRock]

Do these figures take into account all the dollars lost when a drug that has been in R & D for a long time but never makes it to market? Does even take into account R & D at all? I am sure Big Pharma makes a ton of money, I just wonder if people take all the money they must spend into account.

 

[Priapism321]

Do these figures take into account all the dollars lost when a drug that has been in R & D for a long time but never makes it to market? Does even take into account R & D at all? I am sure Big Pharma makes a ton of money, I just wonder if people take all the money they must spend into account.

Yes, hence the term, profit. And, they do not spend nearly as much on research and development as the untrained brain may want to presume. They spend much more on marketing and promotion, part of which is focussed on making the public believe if they didn't make so much money, there would be no lifesaving drugs. It is a joke.

 

[Hels2007]

And since then being successful and making money is so offensive to American collective psyche? Have I missed the coming of Communism?

 

[JRock]

Yes, hence the term, profit. And, they do not spend nearly as much on research and development as the untrained brain may want to presume. They spend much more on marketing and promotion, part of which is focussed on making the public believe if they didn't make so much money, there would be no lifesaving drugs. It is a joke.

Profit can be figured in different ways. Gross profit for instance wouldnt take into account all of the R&D and advertising and thus the profit would seem inflated when thrown around by untrained brains.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Profit can be figured in different ways. Gross profit for instance wouldnt take into account all of the R&D and advertising and thus the profit would seem inflated when thrown around by untrained brains.

Well, the "net profit" or whatever after R&D look pretty much the same in comparison to other industries. They used to show us those charts in pharmacoeconomics class. So, yes, I'd wager that this is after R&D...which isn't as expensive as they claim, anyway...

 

[JRock]

Well, the "net profit" or whatever after R&D look pretty much the same in comparison to other industries. They used to show us those charts in pharmacoeconomics class. So, yes, I'd wager that this is after R&D...which isn't as expensive as they claim, anyway...

I see, I had one professor in my PY1 year that did some work in development at some point and he told us that while the drug companies made good money, it wasnt as much as the media would like us to believe. I guess he was just backing his job up.

 

[pharmacyanalyst]

Well if they aren't spending a ton of money on R&D, they should be. The pipeline right now is pretty much dry and the current generic dispense rate is around 70%.

 

[Megas]

Pharma has one of the biggest profit margins of any industry. I thought this picture was interesting -​

I'd trust the information in the picture more if the author could spell.

 

[ffpickle]

Well, the "net profit" or whatever after R&D look pretty much the same in comparison to other industries. They used to show us those charts in pharmacoeconomics class. So, yes, I'd wager that this is after R&D...which isn't as expensive as they claim, anyway...

It is well known and often repeated that drug companies spend far more on advertising than R&D.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Hell, I've probably got $10,000 worth of pens in my home.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Well if they aren't spending a ton of money on R&D, they should be. The pipeline right now is pretty much dry and the current generic dispense rate is around 70%.

To be fair, that is just a properganda thrown out by drug companies. Most research are done and sponsored via tax payer moneys. A lot of the drugs that we have there usually starts in a university or a small drug company sponsored by the NIH. The drug companies would then come along and keep up research on any promising compounds or work on a specific pathway. Even then, taxpayer's money still pay for a good percentage of the research.

I do give them credit that clinical trials do cost a lot... but its really nothing compared to the money they spend on advertising.

 

[pillpusher2007]

Doesnt it cost around $800M just to get a drug through development from start to finish....this doesnt include all of the millions spent on drugs that dont make it.

PS.....I am not from the darkside, I dont think??

 

[xiphoid2010]

Doesnt it cost around $800M just to get a drug through development from start to finish....this doesnt include all of the millions spent on drugs that dont make it.

PS.....I am not from the darkside, I dont think??

Let me put in my say here.

Yes, it cost about $1 billion to make a drug. Why? Because the attrition rate is so damed high. And compare the number of block buster drugs to all the ones that sell once a season.

At Pfizer, there was something called ATF2. It's basically a 4 quadrant chart showing 2 variables. New vs Known chemical entity, New vs Known drug target. Basically it showed only 1 out of 40 truely novel drugs actually made it to market, while 1 out of 2-3 me-too drugs made it. The attrition rate is really high.

Mean while you got a company that pays high salaries to attract talents from places such as Harvard/MIT, you can see how the cost quickly climbs to stratospheric levels. Pfizer was burning $8 billion a year in R&D cost.

Even when I left in 2006, the "block buster" model is running on borrowed time. All the what we scientists called, "the low hanging fruit" are picked clean by now. Pfizer was pumping more and more money into R&D, but there isn't an increase in output. Can't replace lipitor, Can't replace viagra, bought Pharmacia at a 30% premium for Celebrex but then the cox-2 thrombotic news made that the worst buy ever.

 

[OTFuturePharmD]

Even when I left in 2006, the "block buster" model is running on borrowed time. All the what we scientists called, "the low hanging fruit" are picked clean by now. Pfizer was pumping more and more money into R&D, but there isn't an increase in output. Can't replace lipitor, Can't replace viagra, bought Pharmacia at a 30% premium for Celebrex but then the cox-2 thrombotic news made that the worst buy ever.

This is why Pfizer bought Wyeth. Wyeth has been very successful at diversifying their pipline and bringing a high yield of potentially sucessful block buster drugs, especially in markets for niche diseases/conditions with low competition.

 

[Priapism321]

Pfizer was burning $8 billion a year in R&D cost.

The figure sounds impressive until you dissect the numbers and realize that, while R&D should be the most important component consuming the majority of resources, they spend 3 - 4 times that amount on marketing. You know, on sweet drugs like levocetirizine, real breakthroughs!!

 

[DrJosephKim]

I don't personally work on pharma, but I know many people who do. Like many industries, there are good and bad things about working in the pharma industry.

We often forget that we'd have no life-saving drugs and cancer therapeutics if pharma companies didn't exist. At the same time, pharma companies should not be greedy to make $.

Managed care organizations fall into the same bucket. They should also not be so greedy about their profits. However, if they didn't exist, how would patients have health insurance?

The bottom line is that we have balance so that public health may improve. We need new drugs and we need health insurance providers. Perhaps by getting involved in these types of companies, you can eventually make a significant difference.

 

[gsinccom]

Pharma has one of the biggest profit margins of any industry. I thought this picture was interesting -

​

remember last year when gas prices were over $4 a gallon? looks like "Oil Daily" was working on its public image by throwing another high profit industry under the bus hoping to detract attention from itself. And since when were banks making that kind of profit...ahh...I see the study was done in 2005!

 

[WhiteSnows]

I want to join Dark side too.