Just Say No to . . . Drug Companies?

Update:  Once published, I realized that the tone was a little snottier than I meant it to be.  So apologies to both Ezra and Dr. Avorn, assuming that they read this, for my over-the-top sarcasm.  I don't retract any of the arguments, but I wish I'd made them a little more temperately.

Speaking of Ezra Klein's obsession with experts, I'd like to suggest another class of experts he may not have considered:  people who run companies.  I know, I know--it feels too much like conceding to the kind of annoying right wing ideologues who think that the market is so perfect that if anything good is possible, a company will do it--indeed, will already have done it.  Believe it or not, those people annoy me too.

But while it is certainly true that companies don't know everything . . . that they are merely a part of the vibrant web of different institutions that makes up this America of ours . . . you do not have to be a lunatic free-marketer to acknowledge that companies might be good at a few things that other institutions don't do so well.  You just have to visit the former Soviet Union and ask around.

Of course, I don't know that Ezra has not actually spoken to many people who run companies, and particularly not companies which don't support the current progressive agenda.  But that suspicion is the only way I can explain this very, very strange interview, in which Jerry Avorn, chief of the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women's Hospital, announces that companies don't do anything.  It's no mystery how Dr. Avorn formed this belief:  he pretty clearly has absolutely no idea what companies do.  But the fact that he mistakes his ignorance for a fact about the universe makes me wonder if pharmacoeconomics is what my college boyfriend's roommate used to do with a few grams of cocaine and a copy of Mankiw's Principles

For example, Avorn says:

My view is that the translation of an important scientific breakthrough -- let's say the discovery of tumor angiogenosis, which a lot of drugs were based on -- it's not implausible to say the translation of those basic science findings into a marketable product is something that could be done in university settings, and many university groups are moving towards doing their own licensing. It requires capital, but as you see with biotech start-ups, they can often get it.

So once you raise capital to form a biotech startup, you can often develop a drug, which proves that we don't need companies to develop drugs.  Huh?  Is Dr. Avorn under the impression that biotech startups are some sort of extension campus of the University?  They're drug companies.  They're just in the larval stage.

Ezra leaps in:

Some people have said to me that a lot of the pharmaceutical industry's really innovative work is coming not from inside large companies, but from the acquisition of start-ups.

Exactly. If you look at where their new drugs are coming from an awful lot is coming from buying a biotech company run by real start-ups

So if we just got rid of big pharma, the real innovators would . . .

Well, actually, they wouldn't do anything, because they wouldn't exist.  If we just got rid of big pharma, all the capital that the biotech startups raised in the previous question wouldn't be so easy to raise.  Venture capitalists have longer investment time horizons than retail investors or say, mutual fund managers, but those horizons are not indefinite.  They need to have a way to get their money back out.  That usually happens in one of two ways:  the company goes public, or it gets acquired.

Moreover, biotech firms often lack the assets they need to monetize their drugs:  things like the research capability to take a drug through trials, or even more commonly, the production, distribution, or marketing capacity to actually mass produce the thing and sell it.  These are boring divisions, usually led by people who didn't even go to a decent graduate school, which is why professors of pharmacoeconomics don't know a lot of district sales managers or operations chiefs socially.  But without them, the company goes broke.  If too many companies go broke, there's no new capital for those academics who want to found an exciting new biotech startup, and they have to go back to begging the government for money.

Once you've conceded that drug discovery needs capital, you've conceded that you need a pharmaceutical industry.  The rest, as Shaw said, is just haggling.  But Avorn sails on, apparently blissfully unaware that raising capital is something that is usually done by, er, capitalists.

Dr. Avorn seems  to think that companies are some sort of giant black box to him--the operations are impossible to see, so all you can do is measure inputs and outcomes on a pie chart.  If only there were whole big areas of social science, not to mention the pop business section at your local Barnes and Noble, devoted to describing how companies work for people who might like to know.  But alas, there are not, so medical doctors who want to spout off about pharmaceutical firms are forced to do so with no actual knowledge, nor even an educated guess, about how they might work:

Virtually every progressive recommendation about health policy for the last 20 or 30 years that the drug industry felt might harm its bottom line has been met by the threat that if they don't make as much money before, innovation will cease and there will be no cures for new diseases. It came up around Medicare drug pricing and generic drugs. It's not a surprise to see it come up around health-care reform.

There are a couple reasons that this is a specious argument. One is that according to their filings with the SEC, the drug companies only spend about 15 cents of every dollar on research and development. That's compared to more than 30 cents in administration and marketing and more than 20 cents on shareholder equity. As an investment in R&D, I think any venture capitalist would say a company spending 15 percent on research is not a robust innovation engine.

This makes about as much sense as saying that Dr. Jerry Avorn cannot be that smart because his brain only weighs about three pounds.  Presumably, you can't be really smart--really innovative--unless your brain is at least 30 percent of your body weight! 

Presented by

Megan McArdle is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a former senior editor at The Atlantic. Her new book is The Up Side of Down.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Business

Just In