[shanacarp]

Very true, and radically underdiscussed as an issue.

Part of me really wants to know if it is Actually Cheaper for BigPharmaCo to offset research costs to university/government/startups and then do a Merger/Acquisition to get the promising drug past a certain phase (what have you) vs costs to do research in house.

Is lawyering and banking the process to get a drug to market BEFORE final approval really that much cheaper, or is this an accounting slight of hand issue? What is the actual cost minus marketing to develop a drug and bring it to market that created this situation.

Furthermore, what is the cost of marketing on the books for drug companies that also would drive R&D into third parties. Marketing costs are really not cheap - and they have been rising, especially as more prescription drugs are advertised to consumers. How much of this cost is also driving cost cutting/offset of risk?

(especially wondering since these issues appear appears the recall + no more manufacturing of Avui-Q. The auto-injector issues that caused the recall were untraceable/not replicatable at the Sanofi factory - and seem to be based on descriptions user error driven - and lower than the user error/failure rate of EpiPen. Meanwhile, Sanofi isn't the inventor - Kaléo/pair of brother founders is/are, and they brought nearly the exact same injector technology to market by themselves for heroin overdose. Sanofi just licensed the technology - and in the wake of the recall, decided to forfeit the license. I'm wondering how much of that deal's provisions killed the Auvi-Q, since it appears the issues behind the injector are long term fixable and profitable)