Life-Saving Drug Price Increased by 5,000%

ukfan758
There should be a law where the government gets to control the price of medication and take over medicine producing companies so that crap like this doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

That's what generics are for. So that private corporations can underbid other private corporations and sell the drugs for less.

But as @FoolKiller says, the drug is so not-in-demand that nobody bothers to make a generic version of it.
 
Sanji Himura
That is plain illegal. Why hasn't the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency or the Securities and Exchange Commission started an investigation on this clown? Urging the FDA to not approve competitor's drugs that you are competing with is market manipulation plain and simple.
Click to expand...
You're kidding right? All industry does this. They try to influence the technology standards to their benefit, or they claim better performance than rival companies despite a lack of agreed benchmark. .

Unless he starts bribing the officials or slandering the other business he's entirely within the law.
 
Johnnypenso
Shkreli is so mad at Bernie Socialist that he wants to punch a wall:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/18/news/companies/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-bernie-sanders/index.html
Click to expand...

He can afford the treatment and medicine for Wall-Punching Syndrome, right?

What I don't get is how a drug that old, which should have legally gone into generic status (thus, usually lowering its price significantly) somehow costs that much. I guess no other pharmaceutical company has bothered to copy it, or there's very limited demand? Or you know, insurance companies meet at the co-pay level and the outrage is limited to fine print.

I could totally understand if it was a new drug, or could only be harvested from edelweiss flower extract from a plant only found at altitudes above 5000 meters, picked by pure handmaidens during its three-hour harvest season.
 
Pupik
What I don't get is how a drug that old, which should have legally gone into generic status (thus, usually lowering its price significantly) somehow costs that much. I guess no other pharmaceutical company has bothered to copy it, or there's very limited demand? Or you know, insurance companies meet at the co-pay level and the outrage is limited to fine print.
Click to expand...
I think that it is sarcasm talking, but there IS generics out there and there IS very limited demand for the drug (that was established page 1). I mean that the diseases that the drug in question treats is not common, however, the fact that the CEO of the company is trying to get into Sanders' pocket and try to influence his policies is not really helping his case on either side of the aisle here (I'm a republican).

Besides, we have already clearly established that the full price of the drug isn't going to be pushed on to the consumer anyways. Most of the costs is going to be mitigated by insurance anyways, so it will ultimately be up to the insurance company whether or not to provide coverage for the drug in the future.
 
Sanji Himura
Besides, we have already clearly established that the full price of the drug isn't going to be pushed on to the consumer anyways. Most of the costs is going to be mitigated by insurance anyways, so it will ultimately be up to the insurance company whether or not to provide coverage for the drug in the future.
Click to expand...
Actually yes it is, in the form of increased insurance premiums.
 
Pupik
What I don't get is how a drug that old, which should have legally gone into generic status (thus, usually lowering its price significantly) somehow costs that much. I guess no other pharmaceutical company has bothered to copy it, or there's very limited demand? Or you know, insurance companies meet at the co-pay level and the outrage is limited to fine print.
Click to expand...
It is in low demand so no drug company has tried to create a generic for it. It wasn't going to make profit at generic rates. Until now there was no market for a generic competitor. Now that there is it is too cost-prohibitive for small generic drug companies to get enough of to analyze for creating a generic.

In other countries this formulation is made by other companies. If it were not for our drug importation laws the generics would be possible to make or customers could just buy them from those other countries.

All our regulations on the pharmaceutical industry that were meant to keep us safe were actually designed to stifle competition. We are now seeing the extreme outcome of what over-regulation can do.
 
FoolKiller
It is in low demand so no drug company has tried to create a generic for it.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the ticket for this situation.

In other countries this formulation is made by other companies. If it were not for our drug importation laws the generics would be possible to make or customers could just buy them from those other countries.

All our regulations on the pharmaceutical industry that were meant to keep us safe were actually designed to stifle competition. We are now seeing the extreme outcome of what over-regulation can do.
Click to expand...

I've never been a fan of the importation laws...We can import food, but not so easily import medicine. Weird, although not unexpected with America's ongoing drug fears of the last 80 years.

But hey, get people hating Big Business (a target they can't easily avoid once they're no longer aggrieved) instead of Big Brother, and they forget all about it in the morning.
 
While we can credit "Free Markets" for the gouging, the $1 a pill alternative was driven by generosity and altruism.

San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc., which mixes approved drug ingredients to fill individual patient prescriptions, said Thursday it will supply capsules containing Daraprim's active ingredients, pyrimethamine and leucovorin, for $99 for a 100-capsule bottle, via its website.

The 3 1/2-year-old drug compounding firm also plans to start making inexpensive versions of other generic drugs whose prices have skyrocketed, Chief Executive Mark Baum told The Associated Press.

"We are looking at all of these cases where the sole-source generic companies are jacking the price way up," Baum said in an interview. "There'll be many more of these" compounded drugs coming in the near future.
Click to expand...
 
GBO Possum
While we can credit "Free Markets" for the gouging, the $1 a pill alternative was driven by generosity and altruism.
Click to expand...
Generousity and altruism:lol::lol::lol:? It's marketing, nothing more. "Look at us, look how good we are, we are the good guys, we're not like those other price gouging big pharma guys, buy our stuff". It's a good move, anyone who has never heard of Imprimus before, might remember their name from this story the next time they are looking to buy drugs online or wherever they sell them. It's the free market in action.
 
GBO Possum
While we can credit "Free Markets" for the gouging, the $1 a pill alternative was driven by generosity and altruism.
Click to expand...
Without a free market mechanism they wouldn't be able to express their generosity and altruism, as they are creating a competing drug that couldn't make it to the market otherwise.

And keep in mind, the drug price increase couldn't be feasible without the regulations we currently have. While free market mechanisms are available it is not a free market.


I never understood this mindset that capitalism only causes the bad stuff and altruism or government causes the good stuff. It's like listening to Christians that think their good health or recovery is due to God but illness and deaths are due to sin and Satan.
 
FoolKiller
And keep in mind, the drug price increase couldn't be feasible without the regulations we currently have. While free market mechanisms are available it is not a free market.
Click to expand...

So if regulations were removed, the price increase could not have happened? Bollocks
 
GBO Possum
So if regulations were removed, the price increase could not have happened? Bollocks
Click to expand...
No, without government regulation, you will get situations like this a lot more often (if by other pharmaceuticals or by way of drug importation). As those who deal with drugs know, as things stand legally, it takes years of testing and the FDA's approval before a drug is sold in the USA. No drug is allowed to be sold in the US without those two things. Buy from Canada? Go to jail. Do it under the table? Go to jail.

The only mind boggling thing about this is that the price hiked drug is a generic. Let that sink in for a moment. The company's CEO is someone with a history of activity that could be construed as insider trading and Washington lobbying. I wouldn't be surprised if the man would be prosecuted for such activities if Sanders gets elected. The only ace in the hole that he has right now is that the drug he is making is the only one approved by the FDA and a need for a more modern medicine in the fight against the HIV virus. That's the only justification that he has in hiking up the price.
 
I wouldn't say the "years of testing" is necessarily a bad thing (for rather obvious reasons), unless you've been handed a "six months to live" scenario.
 
Pupik
I wouldn't say the "years of testing" is necessarily a bad thing (for rather obvious reasons), unless you've been handed a "six months to live" scenario.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. My main gripe comes in is where every drug on the market requires FDA approval.
 
GBO Possum
So if regulations were removed, the price increase could not have happened? Bollocks
Click to expand...
It could have happened but it would not have been fiscally feasible for the company as patients would have had options to get the same formulations from other places. Our current laws prevent that from occurring.

This new drug is a new formulation, not the exact same. That is the only way they could have gotten around the licensing issues. Further, they are combining two approved drugs to meet all the same benefits of the original drug. They have to custom make the formulary for each prescription in order to avoid the decade-long testing process.

This drug is happening in spite of regulations, not because of a lack of them.

Pupik
I wouldn't say the "years of testing" is necessarily a bad thing (for rather obvious reasons), unless you've been handed a "six months to live" scenario.
Click to expand...
The six months to live scenario is why many places are instituting "Right to Try" laws. It is sad when states have to create laws to allow patients to ignore current FDA regulations just so the patient has hope of living.
 
Saw this on Facebook.

image.jpeg
 
He might have needed the 5000% increase in order to pay off the fraud charges that were impending. Now it makes sense!
 
...In the midst of all this turmoil, this twit had a time to buy that Wu Tang Clan album for many millions. Wow. If nothing else, this guy do deserve an award for "Biggest Balls of the Year".
 
Joey D
Hopefully Wu Tang or Bill Murray can steal the album back now.
Click to expand...

Supposedly, since he posted bail, there was no federal seizure, and thus The Album is still in his possession.

Do we have a thread for Wu-Tang's single-copy album? It just adds more weird intrigue into this situation.
 

Latest Posts

Back