patrick.net

Drug companies/Corporations are people, should be able to charge any ammount for their products.
Anyone that doesn't like the price should buy the the company & all it's patents.

Some aren't financially literate to be entrepreneurs or lovers of the Free Market.

zzyzzx says

When a drug costs 30 times what it once did

What a rip off.
It's a freakin generic. Let Israel and India start making them.

Time for Meds express .com where you buy direct from over seas factory direct.
Since the drugs aren't made in America anymore. They can't scare us and tell us to be wary of over seas drugs.

"Don't eat 'em they are no good... gobble gobble chomp chomp smack smack..." (talking with mouth full) "vust cherrible!" - US Government

Pay or die!

The patent has expired at least 40 years ago. If it is indeed so cheap to make as everyone screams, why no other company is willing to make ginormous profits by making it and charging $1500 instead of $3000 "greedy bastards" are charging now? Maybe it's not that cheap to make after all?

Straw Man says

The patent has expired at least 40 years ago. If it is indeed so cheap to make as everyone screams, why no other company is willing to make ginormous profits by making it and charging $1500 instead of $3000 "greedy bastards" are charging now? Maybe it's not that cheap to make after all?

I'm sure that someone could. But it would take some time, possibly a year for them to do it, and between now and then the company in question will either gouge people, or inconvenience people who have ot go back to their doctor and get a reasonably priced alternative (different antibiotic). I'm pretty sure I got some of this off eBay (without a prescription) cheap enough a few years ago.

zzyzzx says

Straw Man says

The patent has expired at least 40 years ago. If it is indeed so cheap to make as everyone screams, why no other company is willing to make ginormous profits by making it and charging $1500 instead of $3000 "greedy bastards" are charging now? Maybe it's not that cheap to make after all?

I'm sure that someone could. But it would take some time, possibly a year for them to do it, and between now and then the company in question will either gouge people, or inconvenience people who have ot go back to their doctor and get a reasonably priced alternative (different antibiotic).

One drug, one year.... Why all the "sky is falling" screaming then?

Straw Man says

One drug, one year.... Why all the "sky is falling" screaming then?

There is no guarantee that somebody else will also make the drug and my one year figure is just a guess. Somebody who actually works in the drug industry would know better.

zzyzzx says

There is no guarantee that somebody else will also make the drug

Why not? Assuming that "cheap and easy to make" assumptions are true...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2015/09/22/Turing-Pharmaceuticals-CEO-defends-5000-percent-drug-price-increase/4321442933922/

Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO defends 5,000 percent drug price increase

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 (UPI) -- Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, has defended the 5,000 percent price increase of the drug Daraprim, often used to treat toxoplasmosis in people with compromised immune systems like AIDS patients.

In August, Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired Daraprim, which was first developed in 1953, and the company immediately increased the price of the drug from $13.50 per pill to $750 each.

The price increase raised the average treatment costs for patients from about $1,130 a year to $63,000. Certain patients may need to pay up to $634,000 each year for Daraprim treatment.

Daraprim, known generically as pyrimethamine, treats toxoplamosis, an infection caused by the Toxoplasma gondii parasite, one of the world's most common parasites. The parasite can enter its host when people eat under-cooked meat or drink contaminated water.

Although toxoplamosis isn't considered dangerous in people who are generally healthy, for people who are pregnant or have a weakened immune system, such as AIDS or cancer patients, the effects of the infection can be severe. Daraprim is also used to treat malaria.

"Why was it necessary to raise the price of Daraprim so drastically?" CBS News correspondent Don Dahler asked Shkreli.

"Well, it depends on how you define so drastically. Because the drug was unprofitable at the former price, so any company selling it would be losing money. And at this price it's a reasonable profit. Not excessive at all," Shkreli responded.

The price of Daraprim was about $1 per pill several years ago before it was acquired by CorePharma and prices progressively increased before the price surge by Turing in August.

"This is a disease where there hasn't been one pharmaceutical company focused on it for 70 years. We're now a company that is dedicated to the treatment and cure of toxoplasmosis. And with these new profits we can spend all of that upside on these patients who sorely need a new drug, in my opinion," Shkreli added.

Shkreli told The New York Times that Daraprim is so rarely used that the impact on the health system would be small. He also said Turing would use Daraprim profits to develop improved treatments for toxoplasmosis with fewer side effects.

"This isn't the greedy drug company trying to gouge patients, it is us trying to stay in business," Shkreli said. "This is still one of the smallest pharmaceutical products in the world. It really doesn't make sense to get any criticism for this."

Notice how the CEO fails to mention anything about what the break - even price on the drug is or why they really feel the need to develop a new one with "fewer side effects"? Was someone complaining about the side effects, or was some drug company looking to develop a slightly different version so they could stop making the generic version?

zzyzzx says

Notice how the CEO fails to mention anything about what the break - even price on the drug is or why they really feel the need to develop a new one with "fewer side effects"? Was someone complaining about the side effects, or was some drug company looking to develop a slightly different version so they could stop making the generic version?

Again, if the drug is indeed cheap to make, somebody will come into the market and undercut his price. The situation when a drug is patent-free, cheap to make, lucratively priced and made by one company cannot last long.

Straw Man says

Again, if the drug is indeed cheap to make, somebody will come into the market and undercut his price. The situation when a drug is patent-free, cheap to make, lucratively priced and made by one company cannot last long.

Really depends upon how big the market for that particular drug is.

Thanks a lot, obamacare supporters

Strategist says

Let Israel and India start making them.

They do already, but Obamneycare increased funding to interdict at the border and stop Americans from importing. It's a bipartisan problem: PhRMA runs both major parties. The Republicans bray about "tort reform" (so if somebody amputates the wrong leg by mistake you can't sue) but they never talk about repealing the import barriers (nor the Rx requirement, see below).

zzyzzx says

Straw Man says

Again, if the drug is indeed cheap to make, somebody will come into the market and undercut his price. The situation when a drug is patent-free, cheap to make, lucratively priced and made by one company cannot last long.

Really depends upon how big the market for that particular drug is.

It depends also on the regulatory environment. To approve a generic equivalent, FDA requires proof of equivalence, which requires purchasing legally the original and proving the equivalence of the copy. When a manufacturer is allowed to monopolize the legal domestic supply of a generic, it can control the distribution. The Rx requirement prevents anybody from buying legally for the purpose of copying. Thus, a manufucturer of a generic can achieve a monopoly for as long as the Rx requirement remains law.

Economics and politics are like physics and engineering. You can cite fundamental forces of physics, like gravity, and say that what goes up must come down. Political engineering can counteract those effects indefinitely, however, just as the Pantheon still stands after millenia. "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." The American medical industrial complex has engineered the political system for revenue maximization; citing economic principles about competition is like saying someday the Pantheon will fall: maybe in the long run, but "in the long run we're all dead."

Markets can stay unaffordable by mandate, longer than you can stay solvent

But thanks for making things affordable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/22/health-plan-deductibles-are-growing-seven-times-as-fast-as-wages/

As head of human resources for a Minnesota company with 1,600 employees that manufactures equipment for the mining industry, Scott Arndt saw the writing on the wall five years ago: Health insurance premiums were going to keep increasing by leaps and bounds unless his company, Superior Industries International, did something. Superior Industries is the largest employer in Morris, Minn., and it made a choice that was unusual in the region: It signed up for a high-deductible health plan with a health reimbursement account. That means to ease the pain of a $2,000 deductible for a single person and a $4,000...

zzyzzx says

Straw Man says

Again, if the drug is indeed cheap to make, somebody will come into the market and undercut his price. The situation when a drug is patent-free, cheap to make, lucratively priced and made by one company cannot last long.

Really depends upon how big the market for that particular drug is.

Seriously?!?
Do you guys understand how a market works and the role of competition?
Are you saying there can't be competition in a small market?
Why wouldn't the competition produce this drug if they can sell it for 25x costs????
In fact the question is why isn't the competition producing it now so this problem doesn't happen?

The real problem is for patented drugs. No competition = No free market = No capitalism.
When someone comes and tells you "I can cure you but you must give me your life savings, otherwise I'll let you die", this is not free markets: It's called extortion. Pure and simple.

curious2 says

It depends also on the regulatory environment. To approve a generic equivalent, FDA requires proof of equivalence, which requires purchasing legally the original and proving the equivalence of the copy. When a manufacturer is allowed to monopolize the legal domestic supply of a generic, it can control the distribution. The Rx requirement and the import barriers prevent anybody from buying for the purpose of copying. Thus, a manufucturer of a generic can achieve a monopoly for as long as the Rx requirement remains law.

People should defend their laws like the walls of their cities.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why wouldn't the competition produce this drug if they can sell it for 25x costs????

So many question marks, so little reading: your question was already answered above.

Heraclitusstudent says

Are you saying there can't be competition in a small market?

I'm saying that there is potentially less competition in a small market. You know, like when you are looking at tires for your car and because you have the optional 16" rims, you have only 8 choices, but if you had the standard 15" rims, you would have like 30 choices. It's because more cars use that specific sized tire, more manufacturers make it for that car.

That and I still want to know how anyone could believe the CEO at face value.

Yep, find a drug that has a narrow use, buy the only company that makes it, and hike up the price. Doesn't even matter if it's patent has expired (see Curious2 above).

Even if there wasn't the Generic barrier described above, it would be possible in many situations that other companies wouldn't bother investing the time and effort into producing them, because it's such a tiny market.

Again, to incorporate Dan's idea about grants for all post-grad STEM degree holders, a public Rx monopoly on certain generics might be a great idea, good way to employ the STEM glut.

zzyzzx says

I'm saying that there is potentially less competition in a small market. You know, like when you are looking at tires for your car and because you have the optional 16" rims, you have only 8 choices, but if you had the standard 15" rims, you would have like 30 choices. It's because more cars use that specific sized tire, more manufacturers make it for that car.

Except you have manufacturers of different sizes and if a small manufacturer sees that widget X sells for 25 its cost, even for a small quantity, there's a big incentive to make it.
But you 8 choices for your rare tires, which is why they don't sell for 25x costs, but apparently 1 manufacturer for a commodity drug. The problem is really not the size of the market. The problem can only be how this market is regulated.

If we are really in such a situation where there is only 1 manufacturer hurting consumers, anti-trust regulators should fall on them like a ton of brick: immediately break-up that company into 3 separate one and impose that they all produce the drug.

thunderlips11 says

it would be possible in many situations that other companies wouldn't bother investing the time and effort into producing them, because it's such a tiny market.

Again ignoring that there are small manufacturers, who have a different notion of "small" and "worth the effort'.

You guys all seem to believe that basically free market don't work to keep prices of manufactured items in line.
If so, why don't see some computer parts jumping in price by a factor 25x?
Why don't we see tires, or nuts and bolts jumping in price by a factor 25?
Ask yourself what is different for a drug. Probably not the way a market is supposed to work.

This isn't one drug, one time. This an emerging pattern where some rich smart psychopaths have figured out they can buy generic drug manufacturers that don't have any competition an jack the price through the roof for a pod long hole before the market responds with a cheaper alternative.
What's to stop them from rinse repeating this tactic until every antibiotic costs $3,000 a pill? Nothing.

On a related note, don't buy Chinese rice. They replace up to a quarter of the bulk with plastic kernels that are dyed and scented to look like rice. Just another example of the free market in action! All hail naked capitalism!!!!

What is in theory supposed to prevent this in a capitalistic society?
How come US rice producers don't put plastic in their rice? Just because they are less greedy?

Heraclitusstudent says

How come US rice producers don't put plastic in their rice? Just because they are less greedy?

#1, far and away, would be Civil Lawsuits - esp. the free marketeer's dreaded "Class Action" lawsuit.
#2 to a lesser degree, Rice Growers' interest. Would complain, bring in media, lobby government.
#3, much lesser degree, inspection regime.

What is in theory supposed to prevent this in a capitalistic society

---------------

Some sort of connection to reality between labor and money

You could mark up whatever you produce 1000x over its cost to produce. If your customers can't afford to pay you for it what's the point?

That is what is different with the legal drug market in America. They have legislated that healthy, young, working class people like me fork over my wages to private insurance company so they can charge much more than their potential customers could ever dream to pay.

But smart people like myself knew this would happen, and we tried to warn the idiots that supported this nonsense. Freedom is dead, ppaca supporters caused this to happen. Welcome to American fascism

errc says

You could mark up whatever you produce 1000x over its cost to produce. If your customers can't afford to pay you for it what's the point?

So you think the only limit to prices in capitalism is the ability of customers to pay for them?

If so, why aren't people spending all they have on food? After all you can go without a car or even without a roof, but you can't survive without food, right?
Why aren't greedy capitalists raising the prices of food until you can barely afford it?

I'm amazed by how people think.

thunderlips11 says

#1, far and away, would be Civil Lawsuits - esp. the free marketeer's dreaded "Class Action" lawsuit.

#2 to a lesser degree, Rice Growers' interest. Would complain, bring in media, lobby government.

#3, much lesser degree, inspection regime.

The possibility of civil lawsuits are a specific feature of the US regulations.
#2 is the fear of regulation
#3 is regulation itself.
In other words only 1 thing, the careful regulation of the market by the government.

You could try and sell your tomatoes for 100$ a piece, but there's no law keeping me from growing my own and then giving them away for free. In that scenario, why would you pay the other guy $100 when I can offer you the same thing for free?

I'm amazed that you're struggling so hard to understand something so simple

If so, why aren't people spending all they have on food?

------------

This is a terrible example. People are spending all they have, and then some, on food

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and supplied roughly 46.5 million Americans with an average of $125.35 for each person per month in food assistance.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why aren't greedy capitalists raising the prices of food until you can barely afford it?

I'm amazed by how people think.

I'm disappointed by how some people fail to think clearly, even those who call themselves students of Herclitus (maybe that's part of the problem actually, you should study Socrates instead).

There are few barriers to entry in the food market. If you want a sack of potatoes, you don't need to pay a government licensee for permission to buy a specific type of potato, and then pay another government licensee to count out the precise number of potatoes you have permission to buy. Anybody with a yard can produce food, although, as Dylan wrote, "I can see the day coming when even your home garden Is gonna be against the law." That has happened in the drug sector, as part of a larger policy strategy to maximize prices. It has not happened (yet) in food, although some have reportedly tried.

errc says

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014

Government medical spending cost 20x that. Also, total medical spending cost 10x more than food. Working people depend on SNAP partly because much of what should be their wage income gets diverted instead to mandatory medical insurance "benefits".

errc says

You could try and sell your tomatoes for 100$ a piece, but there's no law keeping me from growing my own and then giving them away for free. In that scenario, why would you pay the other guy $100 when I can offer you the same thing for free?

Yeah well, you wouldn't grow your own food and give it away for free.
But the point is for sure other farmers would sell cheaper than the guy selling a tomato for $100.

Therefore it is NOT (only) the ability of customers to pay, it's the competition of other producers. It keeps prices of everything close to production costs.
At least when there is competition.
And - in theory - there are gov agencies that are on the payroll to make sure competition is indeed happening.

curious2 says

There are few barriers to entry in the food market. If you want a sack of potatoes, you don't need to pay a government licensee for permission to buy a specific type of potato, and then pay another government licensee to count out the precise number of potatoes you have permission to buy.

Agreed and my point is: you shouldn't blame the company that charges what it can. That part is supposed to be this way.

You should blame your government to let it happen, because what they are doing is surely not supposed to work that way.

errc says

You could mark up whatever you produce 1000x over its cost to produce. If your customers can't afford to pay you for it what's the point?

It's the taxpayers that will get stuck with the bill. People with private insurance and high deductible plans (I.E. - everyone who works) will go back to their doctor and get a perscription for a different antibiotic that's cheaper.

One of the drugs in question (Doxycycline) is available cheap on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FishLife-100MG-60-Capsules-Doxycycline-Aquatic-Antibiotics-Fish-Doxy-/281369024638

So what is everyone doing with their $2500 in yearly savings from Obamacare? I got a unicorn and a rainbow.