- 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: Turing’s Martin Shkreli regrets 5,000% price hike—says it wasn’t high enough
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:38 pm to yankeeundercover
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:38 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
Smart money says that $1-per-pill amnufacturer will raise their rates in 6-8 months... no way he would stay rock bottom when there's 648 whole numbers between that and your primary competition that you could set the price...
with the negative press that Turing is getting and the fact that this company likely has a deep portfolio of other money makers and can use this strictly for the good press and use it like a loss leader, if they want, i bet they don't
there isn't a huge demand for it, Turing even admitted it.. it's the fact that no one else was making it that they did and then exploited the lack of presence of other pharmaceutical companies...
i'm willing to bet you see more of this as our current antibiotics become obsolete due to overprescribing and noncompliance to therapy... add in the cost of R&D always increasing and demanding more innovation, and the fact that we really haven't seen a large increase in new drug offerings since the mid 90s, and i could really see other companies start looking at older treatment options to try and tinker with them....
1
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:41 pm to AUbagman
quote:
It's a 62 year old drug, not some new release drug. I don't think most people take issue with a company being rewarded for their R&D. This was just an opportunity to temporarily exploit by grossly overpricing, and then the CEO comes out and says as much. You can champion capitalism and still take issue with situations like this.
The correct price is the maximum people will pay for it, while maximizing profits.
The problem with drug pricing has as much do to with protectionist policies than it does Capitalism. In highly regulated industries, you will get inflated prices.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:44 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The problem with drug pricing has as much do to with protectionist policies than it does Capitalism. In highly regulated industries, you will get inflated prices.
but considering the nature of what we are talking about, do you really not want policies to ensure the safety of our drug supply?
some industries don't really fit in the traditional argument for or against capitalism....
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:45 pm to chRxis
quote:If I read correctly, the drug has been around for 62 years... I'm nearly certain that a pharmaceutical manufacturer loses exclusivity on a drug in ~7 years... (i.e. vicodin to hydrocodone, percocet to oxycodone, etc)
t's the fact that no one else was making it that they did and then exploited the lack of presence of other pharmaceutical companies...
How has no one else gotten into this production?!
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:49 pm to HaveMercy
Mallinkrodt recently purchased Ofirmiv (IV Tylenol). Great drug, but not an essential drug. They tripled the price of the drug after they acquired it. Still very affordable by most standards, but the move pissed a lot of providers off. Resulted in a lot of providers refusal to use the drug. It all works out.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:53 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Yes, that sounds great in theory, but the court of public opinion carries a price also. So they're free to openly price like this and flaunt their reasoning, but it will probably hurt them in the long term, and rightfully so. We're not robotic, emotionless consumers, so pure capitalistic theory is only good as a foundation for a company, but it doesn't tell the whole story. PR reps are highly paid for a reason, and this company would probably be better off without that CEO saying much.
This post was edited on 12/5/15 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:53 pm to chRxis
quote:
but considering the nature of what we are talking about, do you really not want policies to ensure the safety of our drug supply?
some industries don't really fit in the traditional argument for or against capitalism....
Large profit margins encourage competition, and I believe that works in any industry. Raising the price might lead to better, cheaper drugs.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:54 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
I'm nearly certain that a pharmaceutical manufacturer loses exclusivity on a drug in ~7 years...
actually it's 21 from the time the new drug application is submitted to the FDA... however most of that time is in phase trials.... by the time it makes to the public, there's around 7 years left of that period..
quote:
How has no one else gotten into this production?!
there could be a variety of reasons... keep in mind how exclusive the use of the meciation we are discussing... this ain't a cholesterol or diabetes medication... it's for a certain infection within the AIDS community.... with not much use, if any, outside of that... there's really not much reason TO make it, and the only reason we even know about the medication is because of the douchebag CEO exploiting the ever living frick out of its production...
like i said, there are a litany of older drugs that have basically been forgotten about in favor of newer, better drugs, that companies decide they aren't making money on anymore, and they stop production... other companies don't feel the need to make it either, and thus it's not produced anymore... the compound doesn't cease to exist, it's just not in production...
Posted on 12/5/15 at 12:56 pm to AUbagman
quote:
Yes, that sounds great in theory, but the court of public opinion carries a price also. So they're free to openly price like this and flaunt their reasoning, but it will probably hurt them in the long term, and rightfully so. We're not robotic, emotionless consumers, so pure capitalistic theory is only good as a foundation for a company, but it doesn't tell the whole story. PR reps are highly paid for a reason, and this company would probably be better off without that CEO saying much.
I doubt many people know, or care, as long as it works and doesn't cost them a fortune out of pocket.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:03 pm to RogerTheShrubber
I'm sure insurers and pharmacists know, and I'm sure some will look for alternatives to this company when given the option.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:06 pm to AUbagman
quote:
I'm sure some will look for alternatives to this company when given the option.
A benefit of Capitalism.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:07 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
I mean, that's the definition of Capitalism... why charge $1 when you could charge $2... why $2 when $350 is still far less that the competition?
Couple of reasons.
First, $1 is the price per dose. So the patient (or insurance company or the taxpayers) will be forking over $30 for a one-month supply.
Second, it's clear that the production cost is relatively low. That's why the first company was only charging $13 and the second company is charging $1. They're not in it to lose money. If they go to $350 someone else will move their cheese, just like they did to the first company. Set the price at $1 and it won't be as attractive an opportunity for the competition.
If the first company had just gone to $20 or $25, we probably aren't even having this discussion. Instead they went full retard and killed the golden goose.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:16 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Yes, I'm aware.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:18 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
If the first company had just gone to $20 or $25, we probably aren't even having this discussion. Instead they went full retard and killed the golden goose.
Yeah, this CEO seems to be very shortsighted.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:23 pm to AUbagman
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:49 pm to Duke
Damn, I love this dude, if only for the wits and balls to play a real life Gordon Gekko.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 1:59 pm to SG_Geaux
I was responding to the pharmacist's blanket statement that he hates the way pharmaceutical companies operate. I was responding to his generalization - not this particular case.
I don't think Turing developed the drug in question so I am not sticking up for them in particular...
I don't think Turing developed the drug in question so I am not sticking up for them in particular...
Posted on 12/5/15 at 2:03 pm to chRxis
quote:
Posted by chRxis online on 12/5/15 at 12:44 pm to RogerTheShrubber quote: The problem with drug pricing has as much do to with protectionist policies than it does Capitalism. In highly regulated industries, you will get inflated prices. but considering the nature of what we are talking about, do you really not want policies to ensure the safety of our drug supply? some industries don't really fit in the traditional argument for or against capitalism....
The problem w Pharma regulation is that a company is given a finite period during which they can make a profit off their R&D. This causes a gross inflation in prices.
Posted on 12/5/15 at 2:07 pm to HaveMercy
quote:
The problem w Pharma regulation is that a company is given a finite period during which they can make a profit off their R&D. This causes a gross inflation in prices.
the drug in question is not a new, name brand drug.... your premise falls on itself because what you are talking about does not apply to what Turing did...
they took an already developed, out of use generic and gouged the shite out of the price, not having to spend one cent on R&D...
This post was edited on 12/5/15 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 12/5/15 at 2:09 pm to Duke
quote:
I spoke with my counsel & advisers and decided to stop lending my $KBIO shares out until I better understand the advantages of doing so.
quote:
I apologize for any inconvenience this may create in lending markets and I will probably resume lending at some point. Happy Thanksgiving!
This post was edited on 12/5/15 at 2:16 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News