[Regina]

DerbyX wrote:

Hey guys, good nice flaming debate.

As an interested observer and one who may slow it down (Right Regina?)

What exactly is your respected positions on drug sales in Canada.

All retailers charge a "dispensing fee", typically between $6-9. Generic brands are cheaper then name brands (as in all things) and form the bulk of sales.

What is the point of contention?

You're right on all your points except one. Generic drugs don't make up the bulk of sales in Canada.

[Regina]

neopundit wrote:

This is my last post, unless you actually provide something contestable:

- Prove I was wrong in stating that ODB revenues are greater than dispensing fee revenues

- Prove that the 8% markup does not apply to both types of drugs.

- If you think I'm wrong about something, post it so I can argue my point, rather than deferring to that fact that I "know nothing"

Easy as that. Anything else you do is dodging, which I fully expect you to do.

Bullshit..........you've been done like dinner since page two. I've obviously presented concepts and a level of understanding that is beyond your summer employment experience which won't change anytime soon.

[neopundit]

Regina wrote:

When selling to ODB, some money is made on the drugs sold and another $7.00 per script to ODB is also made. Once you get a grasp on that, you can get started on how much labour, taxes, utilities, etc you'll need to pay with that profit.

Holy jebus, what is wrong with your head?

Is also "made"? Is that an accounting term, like your "profit margin" that you continually use incorrectly?

Look, the $7.00 DF is not costless. I know that for some reason you have decided not to included anything thing but the cost of drugs in your calculation, but that's WRONG. Sorry.

Let me see if I can lay this out:

Let's say you you sell 10 prescriptions at $10 a piece. That's $100 in revenue. Of that, $95 is drug costs. That's $5 profit on the drugs.

There is also 10 x 7.00 in DF. That's $70.00 in REVENUE. Now, those scripts take 1 hour to fill. In that 1 hour you have to pay a pharmacist $60 and a tech $10. That means you make no profit.

See how that works? To not include the cost of labour in the DF is stupid, because it's impossible to earn the DF with out the cost.

[neopundit]

Regina wrote:

neopundit wrote:

This is my last post, unless you actually provide something contestable:

- Prove I was wrong in stating that ODB revenues are greater than dispensing fee revenues

- Prove that the 8% markup does not apply to both types of drugs.

- If you think I'm wrong about something, post it so I can argue my point, rather than deferring to that fact that I "know nothing"

Easy as that. Anything else you do is dodging, which I fully expect you to do.

Bullshit..........you've been done like dinner since page two. I've obviously presented concepts and a level of understanding that is beyond your summer employment experience which won't change anytime soon.

DODGE! LOGICAL FALLACY: Improper appeal to authority! Just asked you to provide two things. Instead you predictably posted ONCE AGAIN about being victorious.

You sir, are a joke. Better use your mod abilities and delete the thread, because I'm going to reference it continually.

[DerbyX]

Regina wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Hey guys, good nice flaming debate.

As an interested observer and one who may slow it down (Right Regina?)

What exactly is your respected positions on drug sales in Canada.

All retailers charge a "dispensing fee", typically between $6-9. Generic brands are cheaper then name brands (as in all things) and form the bulk of sales.

What is the point of contention?

You're right on all your points except one. Generic drugs don't make up the bulk of sales in Canada.

Does you analysis include or exclude those drugs that are still "under warranty'? ie they are not allowed to produce a generic from of the drug.

I'l admit that I am going on personal experience but there seems to be alot of them up here.

Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

[Regina]

DerbyX wrote:

Regina wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Hey guys, good nice flaming debate.

As an interested observer and one who may slow it down (Right Regina?)

What exactly is your respected positions on drug sales in Canada.

All retailers charge a "dispensing fee", typically between $6-9. Generic brands are cheaper then name brands (as in all things) and form the bulk of sales.

What is the point of contention?

You're right on all your points except one. Generic drugs don't make up the bulk of sales in Canada.

Does you analysis include or exclude those drugs that are still "under warranty'? ie they are not allowed to produce a generic from of the drug.

I'l admit that I am going on personal experience but there seems to be alot of them up here.

Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

If "under warranty", you mean still under patent then yes this is included. Drugs still under patent represent 80% of the dollars spend on drugs in Canada.

[Regina]

neopundit wrote:

Regina wrote:

neopundit wrote:

This is my last post, unless you actually provide something contestable:

- Prove I was wrong in stating that ODB revenues are greater than dispensing fee revenues

- Prove that the 8% markup does not apply to both types of drugs.

- If you think I'm wrong about something, post it so I can argue my point, rather than deferring to that fact that I "know nothing"

Easy as that. Anything else you do is dodging, which I fully expect you to do.

Bullshit..........you've been done like dinner since page two. I've obviously presented concepts and a level of understanding that is beyond your summer employment experience which won't change anytime soon.

DODGE! LOGICAL FALLACY: Improper appeal to authority! Just asked you to provide two things. Instead you predictably posted ONCE AGAIN about being victorious.

You sir, are a joke. Better use your mod abilities and delete the thread, because I'm going to reference it continually.

Dream on school boy........I do this for a living.

[neopundit]

DerbyX wrote:

Does you analysis include or exclude those drugs that are still "under warranty'? ie they are not allowed to produce a generic from of the drug.

I'l admit that I am going on personal experience but there seems to be alot of them up here.

Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Good, maybe we can have someone mediate this a bit, and have some debate, rather than "YUR 2 DUM IM NOT ANSERING"

I think that drugs still under patent have to be included in the "brand" stats. Otherwise, I imagine generics would dominate.

[neopundit]

Regina wrote:

Dream on school boy........I do this for a living.

What, debate? Obviously not.

[DerbyX]

Regina wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Regina wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Hey guys, good nice flaming debate.

As an interested observer and one who may slow it down (Right Regina?)

What exactly is your respected positions on drug sales in Canada.

All retailers charge a "dispensing fee", typically between $6-9. Generic brands are cheaper then name brands (as in all things) and form the bulk of sales.

What is the point of contention?

You're right on all your points except one. Generic drugs don't make up the bulk of sales in Canada.

Does you analysis include or exclude those drugs that are still "under warranty'? ie they are not allowed to produce a generic from of the drug.

I'l admit that I am going on personal experience but there seems to be alot of them up here.

Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

If "under warranty", you mean still under patent then yes this is included. Drugs still under patent represent 80% of the dollars spend on drugs in Canada.

I did mean that. Now if drugs under patent (which means no generic brands right?) represent 80% of drug sales (I don't dispute this if you say so) then any comparisson between generic and non-generic must only include the other 20% right?

Generic drugs are cheaper and just as good in almost all case as brand name drugs.

What are we disputing then?

[DerbyX]

neopundit wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Does you analysis include or exclude those drugs that are still "under warranty'? ie they are not allowed to produce a generic from of the drug.

I'l admit that I am going on personal experience but there seems to be alot of them up here.

Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Good, maybe we can have someone mediate this a bit, and have some debate, rather than "YUR 2 DUM IM NOT ANSERING"

I think that drugs still under patent have to be included in the "brand" stats. Otherwise, I imagine generics would dominate.

You are right. Generic brands will dominate simply becasue they are cheaper.

The question is always "will they be as effective".

I know for a fact that some generic brands are just as effective, did dominate the market, and did force the brand name drug to match prices in order to compete.

I must be missing something from the debate because that can't be everything?

[Regina]

DerbyX wrote:

I did mean that. Now if drugs under patent (which means no generic brands right?) represent 80% of drug sales (I don't dispute this if you say so) then any comparisson between generic and non-generic must onlu include the other 20% right?

Generic drugs are cheaper and just as good in almost all case as brand name drugs.

What are we disputing then?

Yes the innovator (brand) is a non-generic.

For example Lilly developed the innovator (brand drug) Prozac which the chemical name is Fluoxetine. After the patent ran out the generic companies made Fluoxetine.

For every $100 of drugs sold in a pharmacy today, only $20 of that would be generic. The other $80 would be a brand drug. Once there is a generic the price drops and most health plans would only cover the generic version..........which have been tested by health Canada to be equal to the innovator.

[DerbyX]

Regina wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

I did mean that. Now if drugs under patent (which means no generic brands right?) represent 80% of drug sales (I don't dispute this if you say so) then any comparisson between generic and non-generic must onlu include the other 20% right?

Generic drugs are cheaper and just as good in almost all case as brand name drugs.

What are we disputing then?

Yes the innovator (brand) is a non-generic.

For example Lilly developed the innovator (brand drug) Prozac which the chemical name is Fluoxetine. After the patent ran out the generic companies made Fluoxetine.

For every $100 of drugs sold in a pharmacy today, only $20 of that would be generic. The other $80 would be a brand drug. Once there is a generic the price drops and most health plans would only cover the generic version..........which have been tested by health Canada to be equal to the innovator.

Yes. In other words, once the research monopoly runs out and generic brands are on the market prices drop.

Not disputed.

Your numbers state that 80% of all drugs sold in Canada are of the non-generic kind and therefore not subject to market competiton. Yes I agree?

Where is the debate point?

[neopundit]

DerbyX wrote:

You are right. Generic brands will dominate simply becasue they are cheaper.

The question is always "will they be as effective".

I know for a fact that some generic brands are just as effective, did dominate the market, and did force the brand name drug to match prices in order to compete.

I must be missing something from the debate because that can't be everything?

Indeed, and as you may have been able to pull out amongst the flaming, a big part of Bill 102 was to increase the amount of substitutability of generics.

Generics are just as effective, it's the same drug. The patents exist to promote R&D, and allow brands to recoup costs.

What did you miss in the debate? Hah!

[neopundit]

DerbyX wrote:

Where is the debate point?

Well, I think it started as "ODB contributes much money to pharmacy" and evolved into, I don't know, who's boat holds the most water or something.

Currently the point of contention is whether or not pharmacies are entitled to and 8% markup on both generic and brand name drugs, or just brands.

Regina is adamant about the latter, but I'm told the former and haven't seen anything convincing me otherwise.

What does this have to do with Knoss's drug plan? Not sure. However, it's nice to have someone else to talk to here, I must say.