5000% increase in price

[theiacowtipper]

A drug goes from $13.50 to $750 per pill overnight. Apparently this is a coming thing, in which companies will acquire older, but very effective drugs, and immediately raise the prices astronomically. To be sure, there is absolutely no market forces in play, other than a capitalist sense of maximizing profits.

Meanwhile, patients who need access to these drugs face bankruptcy, or the federal government lines the pockets of these pirates. The article does mention providing a limited number of patients with reduced price or free drugs, but that is certainly the minority. Absolutely nothing wrong with private control of the healthcare market.

And thanks again President Bush and Congress, for not allowing Medicare to negotiate medication prices.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/

 

[markfromj]

To be sure, there is absolutely no market forces in play, other than a capitalist sense of maximizing profits.

Absolutely nothing wrong with private control of the healthcare market.

Maximizing profits IS the only market force.

And agree with the second sentance I have retained.

 

[Joes Place]

A drug goes from $13.50 to $750 per pill overnight. Apparently this is a coming thing, in which companies will acquire older, but very effective drugs, and immediately raise the prices astronomically. To be sure, there is absolutely no market forces in play, other than a capitalist sense of maximizing profits.

Meanwhile, patients who need access to these drugs face bankruptcy, or the federal government lines the pockets of these pirates. The article does mention providing a limited number of patients with reduced price or free drugs, but that is certainly the minority. Absolutely nothing wrong with private control of the healthcare market.

And thanks again President Bush and Congress, for not allowing Medicare to negotiate medication prices.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/

Actual Link:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/drug-goes-from-1350-a-tablet-to-750-overnight.html

A few things:

1. These are 'old' drugs not under patent, so there is no market reason why someone cannot make 'generics' and undercut prices. Why isn't that happening? Because in this particular case, use of the drug is so limited that there is no market incentive to do so. But where there is no patent/IP protection, there is no reason additional competition can't enter the market if the pricing is too high.

2. Per the article, it states that 'insurers will pay close to list price'; that may be, but insurance companies have LOTS of leverage to reduce costs. My guess is that they will push back, and the actual reimbursed cost will be much lower, or they simply will tell the company we won't cover your drug; without a reimbursement code, alternatives will be used (or another drug maker will step in and eventually undercut prices).

3. If these are so infrequently used drugs, they ARE costly, because you spend lots of money to make a batch of them, and they have to be used prior to an expiration date; if 80% of what make in a lot or batch goes bad before it can be used, it's a large loss, so you need to increase costs on the stuff you CAN sell to offset that.

4. Your point on Medicaid not being able to negotiate pricing is spot on: that is a major reason for drug costs going up, and why we spend many times more for a drug in the US than the cost is in Canada or elsewhere around the world. Medicare and Medicaid should be working along with major insurers to negotiate prices for drugs and devices; your insurance company is why you pay $0.30 on the dollar or less for billed costs from your hospital - that negotiating power needs to be implemented vs devices and drugs if there is any hope at keeping medical costs in line with inflation.

5. Drug companies DO need to charge higher prices for new drugs when they launch, because they may only get 1 in 10 drugs to market - 90% fail the testing processes for safety and efficacy. It can cost at least $1B to get a 'new' drug in the marketplace, so if they are losing $8B or more on the ones that don't get through, they will be out of business if they cannot recoup those costs/losses. They get that 'free ride' on high prices during their patent protection timeframe; then generics can step in and enable market forces to take over.

6. Some drugs, like the one that cures hepatitis C, are expensive ($80-100k) per patient, because the costs associated with 'management' of those diseases are lots more costly (particularly dealing with resulting liver cancer). So a drug's cost cannot be viewed in a 'per pill' or 'per treatment' line-item cost; it needs to be evaluated relative to overall patient costs for treating the disease or condition it is used for. If treatment of a chronic condition and associated morbidities costs multiples of the drug regimen, it's a no-brainer to pay for the drug.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Why not charge a million bucks a pill?

 

[cigaretteman]

Big Pharma belongs in the scum of the earth thread!

 

[SIXERS24]

What didnt Obama and the Democrats fix this in 2009 or 2010?

 

[theiacowtipper]

Maximizing profits IS the only market force.

And agree with the second sentance I have retained.

What of patients who are unable to pay the artificially inflated market price for a medication? These medications are rarely used, but have been made for years, we should assume at a profit, at much lower prices. Now, a venture capitalist has decided to profit off someone else's misery and inflate the prices in order to make an extraordinary profit.

Maximizing profit cannot be the driving force in all healthcare decisions. That is the way the current system is trending, and it is to the detriment to society. If you agree with the wholesale, unregulated increase in the cost of medications, you cannot bitch about the cost of health insurance.

 

[86Hawkeye]

A drug goes from $13.50 to $750 per pill overnight. Apparently this is a coming thing, in which companies will acquire older, but very effective drugs, and immediately raise the prices astronomically. To be sure, there is absolutely no market forces in play, other than a capitalist sense of maximizing profits.

Meanwhile, patients who need access to these drugs face bankruptcy, or the federal government lines the pockets of these pirates. The article does mention providing a limited number of patients with reduced price or free drugs, but that is certainly the minority. Absolutely nothing wrong with private control of the healthcare market.

And thanks again President Bush and Congress, for not allowing Medicare to negotiate medication prices.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/

If no one can afford the buy the drugs, then they won't sell many.

Things will get settled in shortly.

 

[GarryO37]

 

[SpartanHawk]

If no one can afford the buy the drugs, then they won't sell many.

Things will get settled in shortly.

And in those situations, many people will get increasingly sick and perhaps die, when there isn't a competitive environment (that would normally exist in a real capitalist market) to allow them to get a drug for the same condition they have at a lower price. You in effect have many "monpolies" for various different drugs that basically should have some degree of regulation since it isn't really a market governed by competition but by monopoly in a lot of these cases. If there were another company having the right to provide drugs for the same condition, then if is a truly competitive market situation, then there wouldn't be that sort of price inflation.

If you had items that no one really needed, then the market would die, and the supplier would be forced to drop their prices or not sell anything.

 

[theiacowtipper]

If no one can afford the buy the drugs, then they won't sell many.

Things will get settled in shortly.

Except of course that, in many cases, people aren't paying for the drugs directly, their insurance carriers are paying for the drugs. In the case of Medicare/Medicaid, the government is paying for the drugs. Yet another example of corporate greed and unchecked capitalism leading to increased deficits and decreased standards of living.

 

[86Hawkeye]

And in those situations, many people will get increasingly sick and perhaps die, when there isn't a competitive environment (that would normally exist in a real capitalist market) to allow them to get a drug for the same condition they have at a lower price. You in effect have many "monpolies" for various different drugs that basically should have some degree of regulation since it isn't really a market governed by competition but by monopoly in a lot of these cases. If there were another company having the right to provide drugs for the same condition, then if is a truly competitive market situation, then there wouldn't be that sort of price inflation.

If you had items that no one really needed, then the market would die, and the supplier would be forced to drop their prices or not sell anything.

Good points. The problem here is that the market for the drug is quite small and no other makers have decided to produce it. It's already off-patent.

What is the solution? How do we entice a maker to continue making something if no one else wants to make it?

Don't get me wrong, I think this particular situation is pretty outrageous, and the CEO seems like a real DB.

The "good" news is that the population needing this drug is relatively small, so even if insurance and the government pay the new price for a short time, it shouldn't break the bank.

In the meantime, there's no reason why patient activists and insurance companies can't hassle the hell out of this CEO. Let him feel the marketplace response.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Except of course that, in many cases, people aren't paying for the drugs directly, their insurance carriers are paying for the drugs. In the case of Medicare/Medicaid, the government is paying for the drugs. Yet another example of corporate greed and unchecked capitalism leading to increased deficits and decreased standards of living.

It won't be unchecked.

Why can't the government choose not to pay for drugs?

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

It won't be unchecked.

Why can't the government choose not to pay for drugs?

Like a death panel?

 

[86Hawkeye]

Like a death panel?

No.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Except of course that, in many cases, people aren't paying for the drugs directly, their insurance carriers are paying for the drugs. In the case of Medicare/Medicaid, the government is paying for the drugs. Yet another example of corporate greed and unchecked capitalism leading to increased deficits and decreased standards of living.

So what you're saying is that corporations are taking advantage of the fact that government, and not patients, are paying for the drugs.

Interesting.

 

[Joes Place]

So what you're saying is that corporations are taking advantage of the fact that government, and not patients, are paying for the drugs.

Interesting.

"Government" which has explicitly and legally been prevented from negotiating pricing on drugs.
Insurance companies can negotiate, of course. They often align their reimbursements with what Medicare will pay out, though.

The way healthcare works, what patients pay is really irrelevant, because individual patients have zero buying power when it comes to most urgent care or critical/cancer care elements - you cannot 'shop around'. That's what insurance is for, because they CAN shop around and negotiate on behalf of all their covered clientele.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So what you're saying is that corporations are taking advantage of the fact that government, and not patients, are paying for the drugs.

Interesting.

Yes, but in (likely) the opposite way you think.

He wants more regulations on the greedy, "cheating" pharm companies, not dialing it all back and getting rid of governmental care.

 

[SIXERS24]

"Government" which has explicitly and legally been prevented from negotiating pricing on drugs.
Insurance companies can negotiate, of course. They often align their reimbursements with what Medicare will pay out, though.

Bush's fault but why didnt the Democrats fix it in 2009 and 2010

 

[BioHawk]

Ah, profiteering off sick people. Such a Christian thing to do.

 

[Gimmered]

What didnt Obama and the Democrats fix this in 2009 or 2010?

Why can't the Republicans fix it now?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

A drug goes from $13.50 to $750 per pill overnight. Apparently this is a coming thing, in which companies will acquire older, but very effective drugs, and immediately raise the prices astronomically. To be sure, there is absolutely no market forces in play, other than a capitalist sense of maximizing profits.

Meanwhile, patients who need access to these drugs face bankruptcy, or the federal government lines the pockets of these pirates. The article does mention providing a limited number of patients with reduced price or free drugs, but that is certainly the minority. Absolutely nothing wrong with private control of the healthcare market.

And thanks again President Bush and Congress, for not allowing Medicare to negotiate medication prices.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/

How about this:
Why did Obama kowtow to the Pharmaceutical companies and the Insurance companies, and unleash a health bill onto this country with no price controls?
The owner of the company should be beaten publicly within an inch of his life for doing what he did. But this administration made this possible for NOT getting things under control before passing the ACA.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Ah, profiteering off sick people. Such a Christian thing to do.

WTF does this have to do with Christianity?

 

[theiacowtipper]

How about this:
Why did Obama kowtow to the Pharmaceutical companies and the Insurance companies, and unleash a health bill onto this country with no price controls?
The owner of the company should be beaten publicly within an inch of his life for doing what he did. But this administration made this possible for NOT getting things under control before passing the ACA.

Cannot disagree with any of this. Politicians of all stripes should be ashamed.

 

[Joes Place]

How about this:
Why did Obama kowtow to the Pharmaceutical companies and the Insurance companies, and unleash a health bill onto this country with no price controls?
The owner of the company should be beaten publicly within an inch of his life for doing what he did. But this administration made this possible for NOT getting things under control before passing the ACA.

Sup?

I agree, that this is something which COULD have and should have been addressed with ACA; however, the big challenge with that legislation was getting the med and pharm companies onboard - they were set for increased markets (more insured patients and potential buyers) w/ ACA in place, so they definitely had upside to support it. However, to help fund ACA, these companies 'accepted' an extra tax on med devices (not sure how it applies to drugs) which was intended to 'offset' extra profits they'd make (they lobbied hard against that, but ultimately accepted it, and I believe most of them saw stock price gains once ACA was headed for approval. The tax that device companies pay is something like 2.3%, which is not 'peanuts'; it's a substantial fraction of what many of them re-invest in their R&D operations.)

A more appropriate solution (than taxing) would have been to enable stronger govt negotiation on pricing, but I'm pretty sure they were even less ok with that than the extra tax levied. Anything added to that Act which would have put downward pressures on pricing would have been a 'no-go' for most all of the medical industrial complex, which is probably why it was not considered, and probably would have stopped ACA dead to rights.

And while I'm for the basic elements of ACA in providing insurance options to everyone, I concur that there are still major shortcomings with its present structure - providing mechanisms to lower costs (through market competition and efficiency, not 'profit regulation') and improve healthcare efficiency are two things that need to be addressed with future legislation. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon with the way our Congressional parties 'cooperate' at this time.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Sup?

I agree, that this is something which COULD have and should have been addressed with ACA; however, the big challenge with that legislation was getting the med and pharm companies onboard - they were set for increased markets (more insured patients and potential buyers) w/ ACA in place, so they definitely had upside to support it. However, to help fund ACA, these companies 'accepted' an extra tax on med devices (not sure how it applies to drugs) which was intended to 'offset' extra profits they'd make (they lobbied hard against that, but ultimately accepted it, and I believe most of them saw stock price gains once ACA was headed for approval. The tax that device companies pay is something like 2.3%, which is not 'peanuts'; it's a substantial fraction of what many of them re-invest in their R&D operations.)

A more appropriate solution (than taxing) would have been to enable stronger govt negotiation on pricing, but I'm pretty sure they were even less ok with that than the extra tax levied. Anything added to that Act which would have put downward pressures on pricing would have been a 'no-go' for most all of the medical industrial complex, which is probably why it was not considered, and probably would have stopped ACA dead to rights.

And while I'm for the basic elements of ACA in providing insurance options to everyone, I concur that there are still major shortcomings with its present structure - providing mechanisms to lower costs (through market competition and efficiency, not 'profit regulation') and improve healthcare efficiency are two things that need to be addressed with future legislation. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon with the way our Congressional parties 'cooperate' at this time.

hey dude...........do you have the same cell number you had in San Diego?

I am all for opening the ACA up for repairs,and revisions. It's very badly needed.
Unfortunately, our political climate will not allow that to happen.

 

[BioHawk]

WTF does this have to do with Christianity?

The fact that we try to profit off sick people is extremely immoral and is not a Christian value. Unless someone can find the passage of the bible where Jesus charges someone for healing or asks how the sick person is going to pay for his services before he makes him better. I seemed to have missed that one.

My point is Christian conservatives should be demanding single payer health care, but they are mostly on the other side of the issue. By the way, if they would support single payer health we would have had it decades ago.

 

[lucas80]

How about this:
Why did Obama kowtow to the Pharmaceutical companies and the Insurance companies, and unleash a health bill onto this country with no price controls?
The owner of the company should be beaten publicly within an inch of his life for doing what he did. But this administration made this possible for NOT getting things under control before passing the ACA.

Why did the Republicans refuse to join the process and abdicate their duties?

 

[lucas80]

I saw snippets of an interview with the CEO of this company. 90 percent of HROT would think he's a miserable little weasel. If he showed up at your front door in high school to take your daughter out on a date you'd slam the door in his face.

 

[cigaretteman]

Martin Shkreli — the embattled CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who has been criticized in recent days for raising the price of a 62-year-old drug by more than 4,000 percent overnight — has been misunderstood.

At least that's the main message from his appearances on various TV news shows Monday and Tuesday. In an interview on "CBS This Morning," Shkreli explained to reporter Don Dahler that the drug in question, Daraprim, was unprofitable at the old price.

Daraprim, which is used to treat a life-threatening condition called toxoplasmosis caused by parasitic infections, had been sold at $18 a pill by the company that previously held the rights to the drug. But when Turing bought the medicine last month, it immediately raised the price to $750 a pill — a move that some patient advocates calculated would bring the annual cost of treatment for a single person to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Shkreli didn't do himself or his company any favors over the weekend when the news of the price hike went viral online after an HIV/AIDS group complained of the increase and he took to his Twitter account to admonish anyone who dared to question the business decision.

[CEO who raised price of old pill more than $700 calls journalist a ‘moron’ for asking why]


He was markedly more humble Monday and Tuesday in on-camera interviews with Bloomberg, CNBC and CBS and in phone conversations with other news outlets, and emphasized that the move was all about the patients.

"Our first and primary stakeholder is patients. There's no doubt about that," he said on CBS. He said that the price of the drug had been so low that "any company selling it would be losing money" and that at the new price, there would be "a reasonable profit, not excessive at all."

"I can see how it looks greedy but I think there's a lot of altruistic properties to it," he said.

He said that with the new profits, the company could reinvest in research into a new drug for the condition, which would only benefit the patients.

On CNBC, Shkreli was told by the anchor that she just spoke with an HIV doctor who said that they don't need a better version of the drug.

"That's not true," he responded. "There's a recent paper that suggests that two patients died due to autoimmune encephalitis from toxoplasmosis, so there's a lot of people who die from toxoplasmosis every year and this field desperately needs new ways to treat toxoplasmosis."

She then told him that doctors she had spoken to were alarmed that some patients can no longer afford the drug: "Do you feel badly about what's happening?"

"No," he said. "In fact, we're increasing access to patients. ... We're dramatically increasing the access to Daraprim, lowering co-pays, giving away more drug for free. Half of the drug we give away is for $1. So I don't know what you're talking about."

He said that the company bought the drug knowing it would raise the price so that it could make an appropriate profit "but not any kind of ridiculous profit."

When pressed at the end of the interview about calls from doctors and patient groups for the company to reconsider its position and lower the price, Shkreli's answer was firm and to-the-point: "No."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-altruistic-not-greedy/?tid=trending_strip_1

 

[SpartanHawk]

Sup?

I agree, that this is something which COULD have and should have been addressed with ACA; however, the big challenge with that legislation was getting the med and pharm companies onboard - they were set for increased markets (more insured patients and potential buyers) w/ ACA in place, so they definitely had upside to support it. However, to help fund ACA, these companies 'accepted' an extra tax on med devices (not sure how it applies to drugs) which was intended to 'offset' extra profits they'd make (they lobbied hard against that, but ultimately accepted it, and I believe most of them saw stock price gains once ACA was headed for approval. The tax that device companies pay is something like 2.3%, which is not 'peanuts'; it's a substantial fraction of what many of them re-invest in their R&D operations.)

A more appropriate solution (than taxing) would have been to enable stronger govt negotiation on pricing, but I'm pretty sure they were even less ok with that than the extra tax levied. Anything added to that Act which would have put downward pressures on pricing would have been a 'no-go' for most all of the medical industrial complex, which is probably why it was not considered, and probably would have stopped ACA dead to rights.

And while I'm for the basic elements of ACA in providing insurance options to everyone, I concur that there are still major shortcomings with its present structure - providing mechanisms to lower costs (through market competition and efficiency, not 'profit regulation') and improve healthcare efficiency are two things that need to be addressed with future legislation. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon with the way our Congressional parties 'cooperate' at this time.

Yep, the basic value of the ACA is that it took the first step of providing everyone the avenue to get basic health care coverage, where before a whole segment of the population had no options except for showing up at the Emergency Room, where often it would be too late to treat many conditions, and often times treatment (even if it fails for certain situations) winds up more expensive and a bigger bill for all of us to pay in that case too.

What ACA still doesn't take care of is a lot of added costs to the system by not really dealing with the added costs that more uncontrolled pharma prices, and insurance company prices still put in to the system that makes our system far more expensive than other countries with single payer equivalent coverage, or at least something like the public option, which Obama didn't even try to negotiate.

Apparently, with the powers in place, Obama probably saw that he could get through some coverage to deal with getting people coverage for things like pre-existing condition, or people not able to afford basic coverage. Republicans along with other more corporate Democrats were still in the pockets of many of these companies that wouldn't let a bill that dealt with the cost issues to pass, so I think they said lets at least save people's lives, even if we didn't save the government from huge debts that are due to a lot of the *corporate welfare* that is given to many of these companies that buy off politicians to keep their profiteering mechanisms in place.

We still need a part 2 to take care of these costs without sacrificing people's health care, but I don't see it with this congress. Will probably have to happen in 2016 if hopefully a lot of progressive (and not corporatist that the current corrupt DNC leadership wants) Democrats can take a lot of the large amounts of Republican senate senate seats up for reelection then, along with a few other events moving that direction.

It's good that we did this approach if a complete solution wasn't available, since at least through this time, we're saving people's lives, which can't be fixed later, whereas the problematic financial situations that are out of balance with the current system can be corrected later if done carefully.

 

[joelbc1]

My father, God rest his soul, was a pharmacist and a dyed-in-the-wool Roosevelt Democrat. However, even he opposed the idea of RX insurance of any sort.
Back in the day (40 years ago), drug reps called on local pharmacists with products. The pharmacist was regarded as the product supplier/specialist. The pharmacist was the link the drug company had to the public. The pharmacist "knew" what drugs were financially viable in the market place.
RX insurance changed this forever. It allowed "Big Pharma" to control the entire economic system of RX melds, from research or production to distribution and pricing. Suddenly the cost of a drug was no longer the responsibility if the drug manufacturer.
This created a double edged sword. True we have more medications available today. However, the cost of these medications is often out of reach for most Americans. With RX insurance the drug manufacturers have guaranteed their profits and increased them mightily. They own Congress and most legislatures in the nation. They receive favorable court decisions that further protect their interests of higher profits.
On the other hand boys and girls, remember tha Dr. Salk refused any profit from his discovery of the polio vaccine.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Yes, but in (likely) the opposite way you think.

He wants more regulations on the greedy, "cheating" pharm companies, not dialing it all back and getting rid of governmental care.

I know.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

The fact that we try to profit off sick people is extremely immoral and is not a Christian value. Unless someone can find the passage of the bible where Jesus charges someone for healing or asks how the sick person is going to pay for his services before he makes him better. I seemed to have missed that one.

My point is Christian conservatives should be demanding single payer health care, but they are mostly on the other side of the issue. By the way, if they would support single payer health we would have had it decades ago.

Why did the Republicans refuse to join the process and abdicate their duties?

Why were they locked out of the initial meetings?
We can do this all day....

 

[lucas80]

Why were they locked out of the initial meetings?
We can do this all day....

Really? The whole process they were locked out, or some initial hearings in which instance it's SOP for the power in control to do prep work for the bill they plan on introducing. It's easier for Republicans in Congress to wander around the TV chatter shows being all butt hurt than admit they didn't attempt to join the process. Their leadership would not allow it.

 

[BioHawk]

Why were they locked out of the initial meetings?
We can do this all day....

Even if we say that what you are saying is accurate, are you seriously trying to imply that conservative Christians would have supported health care reform if they "were in the initial meetings"?

Right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

And that doesn't say much for Christian values either, by the way.

 

[Funky Bunch]

 

[N_fuego]

Mr. Shkreli has changed his mind, and will now lower the price of the drug in question. He's now saying how much he's willing to lower it however.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

Glad I joined in the conversation late to see the blame game in full swing as opposed to still developing.

Blame Bush
Blame Conservatives
Blame Christians

 

[SpartanHawk]

Mr. Shkreli has changed his mind, and will now lower the price of the drug in question. He's now saying how much he's willing to lower it however.

Perhaps he's trying to "play nice" for the justice department who looks like they might be starting the process to give this guy with a checkered past some prison time...

Price-Gouging Pharma CEO Under Investigation for Insider Trading and Fraud