For example, publicly available financial reports from 1999 to 2018 show that the 15 largest biopharmaceutical companies had total revenues of $7.7tr. Over this period, they spent $2.2tr on costs related to selling, general, and administrative activities and $1.4tr on R&D.
Most of the same companies also spent more buying their own stocks, a practice known as share buybacks, than on R&D during this period, note the authors, which raises questions about commitments to truly valuable and risky biopharmaceutical research. The justification of high drug prices to offset R&D spending also ignores the sizeable public investments in
and development, they add. This means that society is potentially paying twice for new drugs, first in the form of publicly subsidized research and second through high product prices.For instance, in the 1970s and the 1980s, around 1 in 6 new drugs approved by the FDA offered important therapeutic gains.
Angelis and colleagues acknowledge that, on the positive side, most products under development during 1997-2016 targeted novel mechanisms of action, but say there has also been a shift in focus from blockbuster drugs, typically targeting