Absolutely correct. However, what is happening in reality is that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is a MASSIVE risk. Globally governments are basically saying...we have disease area (A), the cheapest drug to keep the masses quiet is generic drug (B).
So new drugs may have the patented time, but the access to…

I definitely went on a bit of a tangent!
However you raise a lovely example. Lets say Panadol has equal efficacy as the Tesco product.
The point I am trying to raise is making sure we support rnd with our spend. So GSK makes Panadol vs Tesco, a generic of sorts.

I really get a sense from the responses that the general view is: look at big bad Pharma, not making anything new, making crazy amounts of money and blasting it on marketing.
I know that this exists (and when visiting the states earlier this year, I was amazed at the direct to consumer marketing!)

I can certainly see…

Point taken. Is this not a particular perversion in a particular context? I am sure there are MANY more. However, the fundamental principle of allowing companies to profit from evolving treatments needs to be upheld. If we remove this, we might as well draw a line in the sand, and say....these are the drugs available…

The point of a generic is to be accessible to all. So generic price escalations “ from 700% to 1000%” is madness. The point I am making is to make sure one supports the people who are trying to help the disease area, and not those simply profiting it.

The one major blind spot in this article, is the fact that it is the branded drug makers that are pushing the boundaries in their specific fields. Please research the amount of money spent on RnD by generic companies. Sure, drug companies make money, but it is this incentive that pushes them to creating better drugs…