- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Big Pharma uses old drug to treat rare disorder, w/ $89k price tag
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:53 pm to SprintFun
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:53 pm to SprintFun
quote:
For every drug that makes it to market there are probably 10 that hit the wall in some phase of development.
Well that certainly justifies a 90k a year price tag for Aspirin too then.
I mean we didn't invent it, But we have to sell it...
0
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:53 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Which begs the question, why go through the trouble of spending millions on a trial you know will succeed, especially given that the drug was available for 1/70th the price of what you want to charge?
They knew that the drug was effective before they tested it.
The answer of course is that they knew they'd be able to gouge their consumers with a new monopoly. It's a super shitty look as I said earlier for Marathon.
By your logic they should never try to develop anything because you can get it in tijuana for $2 a tablet?
Of course you develop high margin products. You think you spend millions to break even?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:54 pm to SprintFun
quote:
For generics it is likely much higher.
The thing that hurts people now is patents on drugs are much more than just what it does. The FDA is pushing generics to imitate the innovator to a T, so the innovators are throwing smoke screens on their products that have nothing to do with efficacy but make it harder for generics to come to market. And those costs go to the consumer.
Of course it's easier for generics. Because all you really need to confirm is that the generic is the bioequivalent of the branded version. The company that developed the compound took on all the cost and risk, thus they are able to sell it for 20 years.
quote:
Generic drug applications are termed "abbreviated" because they are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and effectiveness. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent (i.e., performs in the same manner as the innovator drug). One way scientists demonstrate bioequivalence is to measure the time it takes the generic drug to reach the bloodstream in 24 to 36 healthy, volunteers. This gives them the rate of absorption, or bioavailability, of the generic drug, which they can then compare to that of the innovator drug. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a patient's bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug.
The rest of your post I'm not really understanding, so would need a bit more explanation of what smoke screens you're talking about and how they're making it harder for generics to come to market after their patent expiry.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:58 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Yay free market
If you are not allowed to import the drug then it's not a free market or for that matter, given the presence of the FDA it is not a "free market". If we had the type of Euro style socialized medicine I'm assuming you support either we would not have the drug or it would cost the same, just the government would pay for it.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:59 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
The rest of your post I'm not really understanding, so would need a bit more explanation of what smoke screens you're talking about and how they're making it harder for generics to come to market after their patent expiry.
Spiriva is something my plant made once upon a time, so I'll use that for example.
Its an inhalent used for COPD. I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was supposed to go off patent in 2018. As time ticks closer to going off patent the parent company came up with an amazing new inhaler to deliver it, files a new patent, and now the products patent gets extended out another 5 years (for example).
So now lets say a generic company was planning on launching their product in 2018. Well now they're up shite creek because they have to wait another 5 years and when they go to file the FDA wants to see that their inhaler mechanism is identical to the innovator. And the innovator probably made it much harder to reproduce even though who knows if it actually helps the patient.
ETA: And oh yea, the generic company is getting their dick sued off by the innovator for using their patented technology, so now you throw legal fees into the cost of the product. And who pays those?
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:05 pm to SprintFun
quote:
your logic they should never try to develop anything because you can get it in tijuana for $2 a tablet?
Of course you develop high margin products. You think you spend millions to break even?
PR. No one forgets a bad guy in the medical industry.
Remember Martin Shrkeli? He blackened Turing's name by trying to tout the same logic you are now. Instead of Turing making a lot of money off of their Toxoplasmosis drug, they compelled competitors to undercut their price. If they hadn't gouged their consumer they would have made a lot less enemies and a lot more money.
Same thing with Mylan and the Epipen.
Drug companies can try and inflate their prices and it works for a little while, but usually what happens is they lose to other competitors.
By the way, importing drugs from Europe and Canada is a little different than getting them off the black market in Tijuana.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:09 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
you are not allowed to import the drug then it's not a free market or for that matter, given the presence of the FDA it is not a "free market".
Good we agree.
quote:
If we had the type of Euro style socialized medicine I'm assuming you support either we would not have the drug or it would cost the same, just the government would pay for it.
A couple of things
1)What makes you think I support socialized medicine?
2)You do realize that the drug was being imported from Europe for FAR less than what Marathon is gouging their customers for now?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:12 pm to lsupride87
Pharmaceutical companies are evil and our only hope is for the government to protect us!! Don't even worry about the fact that they are the ones creating the problem. I swear every day I hate the government more than I did the day before.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:21 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
A couple of things
1)What makes you think I support socialized medicine?
generally people who complain about drug prices in this country and make comments like "yay free market" it is because they are blaming the free market and by extension prefer an alternative like socialized medicine. If you don't and would rather a true free market like i would in medicine then
quote:
You do realize that the drug was being imported from Europe for FAR less than what Marathon is gouging their customers for now?
right, but if we had the same system would the US buy from Europe at the import price or buy from the US maker at that price? One of the problems with "free" HC is the patients are not price sensitive. Also, if we have government run HC and did import would this Marathon or whoever make the drug at all?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:22 pm to SprintFun
quote:
Its an inhalent used for COPD. I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was supposed to go off patent in 2018. As time ticks closer to going off patent the parent company came up with an amazing new inhaler to deliver it, files a new patent, and now the products patent gets extended out another 5 years (for example).
So now lets say a generic company was planning on launching their product in 2018. Well now they're up shite creek because they have to wait another 5 years and when they go to file the FDA wants to see that their inhaler mechanism is identical to the innovator. And the innovator probably made it much harder to reproduce even though who knows if it actually helps the patient.
I'd have to do some research on this specific example. The compound itself is the same, so it should be possible for the generic to come to market on the expired delivery system. I am not certain changing up the delivery system would give them extended patent protection (though of course I could be wrong).
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:24 pm to NYNolaguy1
$89,000 is pretty cheap for an annual life changing drug. I am not being a smart arse. Look at Hepatitis C it is $37,000 for a 90 day supply and you need about 3-4 90 day supplies to get cured.
The problem is not the drug makers. The problem are PBM's. Prescription Benefit Management companies like Expressscripts (they OWN Walgreens) and Caremark (they own CVS and now Target) that drive the price through the roof.
These PBM's negotiate the price of the drugs. Not the pharmaceutical company. The lady and the epi pen deal. Falsely accused. These PBM's the. Solicit BCBS, Aetna, United And say, "I can sell you Nexium to your network for $145.00 for 30 day supply. Follow me now.
Insurance covers say $50.00 so you still have to pay that lovely "not covered on your formulary / plan" of $95.00. So the pharmacy collects it and send to the PBM LESS THEIR DISPENSING FEE.
So a $145.00 Walmart, Walgreens and CVS and all pharmacies are tickled to death to get a $12.00 dispensing fee and big pharma maybe $10.00 the rest is split between the PBM and kicked back to the network like BCBS, United and Aetna.
The problem is not the drug makers. The problem are PBM's. Prescription Benefit Management companies like Expressscripts (they OWN Walgreens) and Caremark (they own CVS and now Target) that drive the price through the roof.
These PBM's negotiate the price of the drugs. Not the pharmaceutical company. The lady and the epi pen deal. Falsely accused. These PBM's the. Solicit BCBS, Aetna, United And say, "I can sell you Nexium to your network for $145.00 for 30 day supply. Follow me now.
Insurance covers say $50.00 so you still have to pay that lovely "not covered on your formulary / plan" of $95.00. So the pharmacy collects it and send to the PBM LESS THEIR DISPENSING FEE.
So a $145.00 Walmart, Walgreens and CVS and all pharmacies are tickled to death to get a $12.00 dispensing fee and big pharma maybe $10.00 the rest is split between the PBM and kicked back to the network like BCBS, United and Aetna.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:29 pm to Uncs
This is why you can go to Canada and get the same drugs for less. NO PBM's. no kick back to the insurance companies no middle man between patient and drug
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:31 pm to Uncs
As far as pain cream. Scam! Do they work yes but again the inflation is ridiculous. Honestly use to sell them.
Take a cold cream like Noxemia and crush hydrocodone pills in it no that's what your insurance was being charged $4,000 -$5,000 and they put a stop to that shite quick
Take a cold cream like Noxemia and crush hydrocodone pills in it no that's what your insurance was being charged $4,000 -$5,000 and they put a stop to that shite quick
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:33 pm to Spock's Eyebrow
quote:
Pharma is only 10% of health care expenditures. Here's a chart I found on Aetna's web site:
Do you always believe what insurance companies tell you?Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:36 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Yay free market.
WTF does any of that have to do with the free market system? I think you need to look up what a free market is...
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:39 pm to lsu480
quote:
WTF does any of that have to do with the free market system? I think you need to look up what a free market is...
I think more than a few people in this thread missed the sarcasm...
Read down a few posts and you'll see it's nothing resembling a free market.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:52 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I think more than a few people in this thread missed the sarcasm...
well in fairness it is hard to catch subtlety in this type of forum. "yay free market" comes across as sarcasm but sarcasm that is blaming the free market. admittedly i did not go past the op before responding
Posted on 2/10/17 at 5:03 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I am all for capitalism
Right.
quote:
free market.
Right.
quote:
But my libertarianism gets tested with Pharma
It shouldn't.
A free market would, by definition, be free of FDA bs so that the importation of drugs from overseas would be illegal.
By any economic definition, the FDA is anti-free market and is a scourge on our nation.
DEA, FDA, NEA, EPA, and ATF can all go away, and our lives will be forever bettered.
In order though, the FDA should be abolished, cannibas rescheduled, and then we'd truly have a free market.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 5:26 pm to airfernando
quote:
Do you always believe what insurance companies tell you?
Did you read the rest of my message, where I related that 2010 chart to the 2015 cms.gov numbers, which were about the same? I would have included a differently sourced graphic if I had found one. Idiot.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 5:52 pm to NYNolaguy1
I have no problem with charging high prices for cars, electronics, clothes, boats, furniture, etc....but medicine? Life saving procedures? I think when you start talking about lives, there needs to be price regulation, because the rest of the world is looking at us like we are servile, retarded sheep when it comes to allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge prices like this.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 5:53 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News