[Ip-health] DiMasi Study

Michael H Davis m.davis at csuohio.edu
Thu Nov 20 13:12:24 PST 2014



Jamie

A lot of drugs have been developed in federal funding alone which generally is in that ballpark out less. What diMasi confuses is research and development
With commercialization. Once the patent is issued research and development is completed. The rest is regulatory costs, not part of r&d, and simple commercialization that all companies engage in without a monopoly.

Mickey

_______________________________________


Prof. Mickey Davis
216/687-2228(phone)
917/771-0235 (cell)

Mailing Address:
Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Avenue, LB 234
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214

Campus Location:
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
1801 Euclid Avenue
Law Building, LB 234

Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 45,863


-------- Original message --------
From: Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org>
Date:11/20/2014 3:39 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Nathaniel Lipkus <nathaniel.lipkus at gmail.com>
Cc: Ip-health <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
Subject: Re: [Ip-health] DiMasi Study

Nathaniel,

Next time you might try to address actual technical critiques of the
release of the $2.6 billion number.  Assuming you are not an activist  on a
mission yourself.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when saying "they cite countless
examples of drugs developed “on a shoestring”, for $50 million or less. "
Do you have a pointer for this?

We did publish actual data from the IRS orphan drug tax credit.  And, we
published the number of patients in trials for the FDA medical reviews for
ALL oncology products put on the market in the past 10 years (and the
orphan drug status of all 49 products).

We also raised some basic questions about uses of the averages for his
still secret sample, and questioned the relevance to the drugs for which
prices are most controversial.   Like you, we think context matters.

Questions of fact should not be ideological.   Estimates of costs should be
transparent.  If designed to be used by policy makers, they should also be
designed to enlighten, and not confuse.

Since you know something about this field, and, I am guessing you have read
the Tufts press release and power-point slides (there is no actual study
available yet), what do you think DiMasi was saying, about the
out-of-pocket costs on a particular drug, before risks and capital costs
are accounted for?  And, if you can't muster an estimate, what does that
say about the way Tufts released the data?


Jamie


On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Nathaniel Lipkus <
nathaniel.lipkus at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a short editorial on the DiMasi study, from my blog, Just Biotech (
> www.justbiotech.ca):<http://www.justbiotech.ca):>
>
> http://www.justbiotech.ca/2-6-billion-to-develop-a-drug-so-what/
>
> Comments welcome,
>
> Nathaniel
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>



--
James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
+41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org



More information about the Ip-health mailing list