Price gouging by Big Pharma: How do you stop it? (1 Viewer)

[Saint_Ward]

I'm allergic to wasps and carried an epinephrine shot when I was a kid out hiking or whatever. I don't know if the epi pen is the same or not, but I know it wasn't any $300 because I'd lose them all the time and my mother never complained about it.

Creating a generic is nice window dressing when you've increased your regular price so drastically that a generic at 3 times the old price seems like a deal while still making an absurd amount of money.

You probably had something old school. Just a preloaded hypodermic needle.

My Abuela has diabetes and (when she still could) would inject herself with insulin every day with a syringe. Crazy to watch.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The patent holder creating a generic is nothing. They still hold the patent and the monopoly. It's when others are allowed to create generics and compete that a true bargain is supposed to happen. But it doesn't always happen this way...

When I was first diagnosed as a diabetic back in the middle ages, there was Humulin by Eli Lilly and Novolin by Squib Novo (now Novo Nordisk). At that time, doctors told me and my mother that Novolin was the generic to Humulin and thus cheaper. This was true until perhaps during my time in college when the price I paid for Novolin started going up. According to my doctor, Nordisk was able to secure a patent of their own. Here we are today and the only competition that insulin manufacturers have with one another is who can increase their prices the most. In the past five years, I've had to switch between Humalog and Novolog three times (every other year) because of price issues between big pharma and my insurance company.

 

[TheDeparted]

At the end of the day, it is not the ultimate objective of drug companies, or any other corporations, to be a "good corporate citizen". Their only obligation is to their shareholders and the board of directors. If the two things happen to coincide, that's fine, but one goal trumps the other.

This is the result when we worship at the totem of "letting the market decide."

No, that is not what's happening here. There is no competition, so this is a false market. There is no competition because of government interference.

 

[dtc]

No, that is not what's happening here. There is no competition, so this is a false market. There is no competition because of government interference.

So, are you going to make the argument that protected patent rights are a bad thing?

Next, will you argue that private property is a product of over regulation?

 

[coldseat]

No, that is not what's happening here. There is no competition, so this is a false market. There is no competition because of government interference.

Government Interference? Or Business interference through lobbying?

The FDA is necessary. We can't have Joe Blow drug company making claims and producing drugs that have not effect on disease with out actually knowing if they're effective and safe for people to take. So regulation is needed on some scale.

What we need is to limit Big Pharma's influence and manipulation of our laws and lawmakers so that sensible regulations are passed and not these laws intended to stifle competition without any safeguards for the cost of the drugs for consumers.

 

[coldseat]

Maybe this won't be going away as quickly as I thought.

How EpiPen came to symbolize corporate greed

...

The national outrage this month, sparked by a social media campaign by parents, has forced Mylan (MYL) to respond by taking the unusual step of launching a generic version of EpiPen at a 50% discount to its current price, as well as other moves to make the treatment more affordable.

Despite those efforts, Congress is now investigating Mylan. The powerful House Oversight Committee sent a letter to Bresch on Monday requesting a briefing and a trove of documents from the company about EpiPen.

How EpiPen came to symbolize corporate greed - Aug. 29, 2016

This part here piss me off though:

Mylan's defenders note that the $609 list price of EpiPen may get all of the attention, but most consumers don't actually pay that. Even before Mylan's recent cost-cutting moves, the company has indicated that 80% of its prescriptions translate to $0 out-of-pocket expenses.

Even if that is true (I have my doubts), who do they think is paying for the medicine? Regardless if you have to pay out of pocket or not, the consumer always pays the prices. If health insurances have to cover these exorbitant drug prices, the consumer still pays by way of increased premiums. The consumer always pays. It's not like insurance companies are going to take a loss for the sake of the consumer. This argument is so full of ****!

 

[TheDeparted]

So, are you going to make the argument that protected patent rights are a bad thing?

I did not make that argument.

Next, will you argue that private property is a product of over regulation?

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I did not have plans to make such an argument.


Have you any more Strawmen to throw at me?

 

[TheDeparted]

Government Interference? Or Business interference through lobbying?

They both ultimately end up as the same thing, don't they?

The FDA is necessary. We can't have Joe Blow drug company making claims and producing drugs that have not effect on disease with out actually knowing if they're effective and safe for people to take. So regulation is needed on some scale.

Eh...only if you favor Government Regulation over Private Certification and trustworthy Standards Organizations.


If you wish to argue that a private standards organization wouldn't work because you need the power of the central government (i.e., guns and immunity for their actors), I point you to your final paragraph where you bemoan the influence big companies have over the government and its regulating bodies:

What we need is to limit Big Pharma's influence and manipulation of our laws and lawmakers so that sensible regulations are passed and not these laws intended to stifle competition without any safeguards for the cost of the drugs for consumers.

Corruption like this is far worse when it's a government than a private organization - Big Pharma has influence over where the government points its guns. Awesome, right?

 

[coldseat]

They both ultimately end up as the same thing, don't they?




Eh...only if you favor Government Regulation over Private Certification and trustworthy Standards Organizations.


If you wish to argue that a private standards organization wouldn't work because you need the power of the central government (i.e., guns and immunity for their actors), I point you to your final paragraph where you bemoan the influence big companies have over the government and its regulating bodies:



Corruption like this is far worse when it's a government than a private organization - Big Pharma has influence over where the government points its guns. Awesome, right?

Who's going to enforce edicts from private certification and trustworthy standards organizations? What makes you think that if this where to happen, Big Pharma wouldn't just sink it's teeth and it's money into these organizations to gain influence? Who runs these organizations? Who has oversight?

Because it's private, doesn't make it better or more trustworthy. You don't think Big Pharma will put their people in these organizations to run things? At least with government, we have a way of effecting change when we ALL pay attention, act on it and demand changes. I don't know that the same would be true fro these Private Certification and Trustworthy Standards Organizations.

 

[TheDeparted]

Who's going to enforce edicts from private certification and trustworthy standards organizations? What makes you think that if this where to happen, Big Pharma wouldn't just sink it's teeth and it's money into these organizations to gain influence? Who runs these organizations? Who has oversight?

Because it's private, doesn't make it better or more trustworthy. You don't that Big Pharma will put their people in these organizations to run things? At least with government, we have a way of effecting change when we ALL pay attention, act on it and demand changes. I don't know that the same would be true fro these Private Certification and Trustworthy Standards Organizations.

Obviously, to be a member in such an organization one would have to agree to certain terms including inspection.

And of course corruption is a possibility. It's almost a likelihood just as it's a likelihood in the Government. Is it better when it's a corrupt government entity?

At least with private (if 'private' is even the word I mean) organizations, there is the possibility of having competing entities. Corrupt government? It's illegal to make a new one.

At least with government, we have a way of effecting change...

Good one.

 

[Galbreath34]

The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States:  Origins and Prospects for Reform | Aug 23, 2016 | JAMA | JAMA Network

High drug prices are the result of the approach the United States has taken to granting government-protected monopolies to drug manufacturers, combined with coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits. The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices.

 

[Alan]

I dare you to look into the amount of recalls since 2000.

What ever you do .....do not open door number one.

No I will not give you a hint....this was covered in past "deplorable basket" discussions.

P.S. I do like you Galbreath, so never take my viewpoints personally.

 

[coldseat]

Orphan Drug Act

Wow. I never knew about this law and the effects it was having. This is what is allowing Drug manufactures to rake in money hand over fist with little work by just repurposing existing drugs into new shiny containers. Shameful, but this is what happens when your health care becomes all about business (as is the current trend among conservative) profit rules everything. It's not about lowering cost or making things better for consumers, it's about extracting every penny in every way possible.

But lucrative financial incentives created by the Orphan Drug Act signed into law by President Reagan in 1983 succeeded far beyond anyone's expectations. More than 200 companies have brought almost 450 so-called orphan drugs to market since the law took effect.

Yet a Kaiser Health News investigation shows that the system intended to help desperate patients is being manipulated by drugmakers to maximize profits and to protect niche markets for medicines already being taken by millions. The companies aren't breaking the law but they are using the Orphan Drug Act to their advantage in ways that its architects say they didn't foresee or intend. Today, many orphan medicines, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.

And many drugs that now have orphan status aren't entirely new. More than 70 were drugs first approved by the Food and Drug Administration for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly.

More than 80 other orphans won FDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drugmaker qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. Botox, stocked in most dermatologists' offices, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and now has three orphan drug approvals. It's also approved as a mass market drug to treat a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles.

Altogether, KHN's investigation found that about a third of orphan approvals by the FDA since the program began have been either for repurposed mass market drugs or drugs that received multiple orphan approvals.

Orphan Drug Rules Manipulated By Industry To Create Prized Monopolies : Shots - Health News : NPR