If you have a drug that is $100 for one course of therapy, and you know that you can charge $100,000, what should shareholders think when you say, 'I'd rather not take the heat'?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Drug companies say they need to charge ever-higher prices to cover their research costs, but they spend far less on research and development than they do on marketing and administration, and afterwards they actually keep more in profits.
What I am saying is, all health care has a problem with costs. Medicare is growing slower than the private insurance plans. Why? Because of their efficiency. They don't have to give money to shareholders. Why should be defending shareholders?
When a company is fairly certain of a profit margin that is substantial, it can assume responsibility for the clinical trials to develop a blockbuster drug.
Why pay $100 on a therapy session when you can spend $25 on a cigar? Whatever it is will come back; so what, smoke another one.
The ability to please your shareholders comes because of what you do for clients.
My shareholders expect me to make the most profit. That's the ugly, dirty truth.
I keep encouraging the pharmaceutical companies to put more money into R&D.
It's crucial to keep in mind that the hundreds of millions of dollars now spent on prescription drug advertisements are ultimately paid for by consumers in the form a higher drug prices.
A transfer of money should never be involved in this profound situation. Although illness is profound, too, but medicine's a business today. It's a business.
While I recognize the great value and importance of prescription drugs and strongly support a continued U.S. focus on pharmaceutical research and development, our nation's seniors cannot be asked to subsidize the drug costs of other wealthy industrialized nations any longer.
No opposing quotes found.