EpiPen story continues

[hal2kilo]

Not sure why the previous thread was closed although their really wasn't any real information being exchanged, but I found this excellent OPED regarding the subject.

I'm in no way defending Mylan, but there's many players involved that can share some of the blame. One of the most prominent to me is the U.S patent office for even granting a patent to Merck for a very minor tweak to what the US government was already using (and paid for the development of) the drug delivery system.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/the-...-for-outrageous-epipen-prices-commentary.html

Oh and then there's where all the money Mylan showered all over congress. It will be really interesting to see the hearings conducted by people who received campaign contributions from Mylan. Both parties are up to their eyeballs.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/26/sena...e-hike-received-donations-from-mylan-pac.html

 

[dainthomas]

Single payer would fix this.

 

[theeedude]

The biggest thing for Congress to do is to allow Medicare to negotiate prices instead of paying prevailing prices.
Right now, it makes sense for companies to jack up prices, not only do they get paid more by private insurer, but Medicare then has to pay those higher prices too.

 

[hal2kilo]

The biggest thing for Congress to do is to allow Medicare to negotiate prices instead of paying prevailing prices.
Right now, it makes sense for companies to jack up prices, not only do they get paid more by private insurer, but Medicare then has to pay those higher prices too.

It sure seems like the scum has come out of the woodwork to take advantage of both the non-negotiable Medicare D program and Obamacare bucks.
It would be nice if the US had it's own charity foundation that would fund the manufacture of off patent drugs. The endless wringing of profits for medicines that a lot of were pioneered by U.S. government funding in the first place.

 

[Yakk]

Between product recall, lack of production, and lack of competition, this is what you get.

Unfortunate situation, which could've been prevented.

 

[Phynaz]

Those darn liberal CEO's, sticking it the little people!

 

[OutHouse]

Epipen $$$$$ Narcan free.

Makes sense.

 

[shortylickens]

is it true they donated a crapload of money to Hillary?

 

[Slew Foot]

That's OK, we'll just pay doctors less. That will solve all our healthcare problems.

 

[trenchfoot]

If things go the way they usually do in such cases, everything's already laid out and taken care of from top to bottom, unless there's some kind of internal turf war going on with concerned parties. There will always be opportunists waiting for the right moment to strike should the stars align the right way, but with so much $$$$ at stake, it seems to me the big wigs in this situation don't want the gravy train disturbed in any way shape or form.

All they need to do is grease the right palms, pull the right strings, call in some IOU's from the stratosphere and write some hefty well placed ones of their own, and voila, wrists will be slapped, a tsk tsk will be uttered and things will go right back to how they are.

 

[compuwiz1]

is it true they donated a crapload of money to Hillary?

Yes, sort of, to the foundation. What's a crap load? CEO is the daughter of Joe Manchin, democrat senator.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/25/company-that-price-gouged-epipen-is-clinton-foundation-donor/

 

[Subyman]

IMO, high ranking WHO medications should have price limits. Obviously the problem with that is it could stifle innovation of critical drugs. The whole thing is messed up.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Single payer would fix this.

How? Single payer just means one payer. If that single payer government entity isn't willing to use its collective negotiating power to put the screws to big Pharma then nothing changes on drug prices. They have politicians in their pocket to prevent that from happening, so single payer alone means we would just go broke faster.

What would fix it is campaign finance reform so politicians have a reason to care what constituents want over what drug companies want.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

IMO, high ranking WHO medications should have price limits. Obviously the problem with that is it could stifle innovation of critical drugs. The whole thing is messed up.

To my understanding the cost of the steroid is about $2 and that hasn't changed in decades, the cost of the auto injector that had minor changes made to it so it could be patented again is a different question.
Assuming this isn't a money grab why not have two choices the new improved injector or the lower cost old injector and let the market decide if improvements to the injector are worth several hundred more.

 

[Subyman]

To my understanding the cost of the steroid is about $2 and that hasn't changed in decades, the cost of the auto injector that had minor changes made to it so it could be patented again is a different question.
Assuming this isn't a money grab why not have two choices the new improved injector or the lower cost old injector and let the market decide if improvements to the injector are worth several hundred more.

I don't understand why there isn't a generic old injector.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't understand why there isn't a generic old injector.

Because they stopped making it.
I'd guess the old injector is close to losing patent protection

The changes were made to increase revenue the drug hasn't changed in any substantial way, the injector hasn't changed in any substantial way. I'll accept the argument that some of the money being earned goes toward new treatments but it will end up being for something stupid like a Viagra patch. Drug companies don't want to cure or vaccinate people they earn far, far more with lifelong treatments.

As far as an old generic version, they gave their two competitors big "research" grants or some thing that sounds an awful lot like a bribe and bought the 3rd guy who could make it.

 

[boomerang]

An under $10 solution.

http://abc22now.com/news/local/epinephrine-injection-kit-for-under-10

 

[theeedude]

An under $10 solution.

http://abc22now.com/news/local/epinephrine-injection-kit-for-under-10

The problem is the doctors don't care about prices, they just prescribe whatever they feel like. In some cases, I believe in Medicare, they even get paid a percentage of the price.

 

[Genx87]

This is like the asshole who raised the price on a generic last year. Many govt layers to the onion that need to be peeled back in order to fix. Im not holding my breath this will happen anytime soon.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/

 

[PokerGuy]

Surprised no idiots have come in here yet to post about how this shows the evils and failures of the "free market". This stuff is the direct result of dumb government policies, patent system and monopolies.

Single payer/medicaid/insurance/obummercare, whatever. None of that changes anything with regards to these issues. You're just shifting around who pays for what, but we're all still paying.

 

[glenn1]

To my understanding the cost of the steroid is about $2 and that hasn't changed in decades, the cost of the auto injector that had minor changes made to it so it could be patented again is a different question.
Assuming this isn't a money grab why not have two choices the new improved injector or the lower cost old injector and let the market decide if improvements to the injector are worth several hundred more.

Then you should put your own capital in play and develop/sell your own delivery system to provide that $2 of medicine and only accept the "correct" amount of profit for it. Evidently since you think $608 is way too high for "moral reasons" you'll be charging a lot less. And donating all your profits to charity or some shit.

We'll wait right here for you to start writing checks to fund this project on behalf of bettering your fellow man and preventing such callous price gouging.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Then you should put your own capital in play and develop/sell your own delivery system to provide that $2 of medicine and only accept the "correct" amount of profit for it. Evidently since you think $608 is way too high for "moral reasons" you'll be charging a lot less. And donating all your profits to charity or some shit.

We'll wait right here for you to start writing checks to fund this project on behalf of bettering your fellow man and preventing such callous price gouging.

Thanks for the post that's loaded with silliness and assumptions.
For the record in a general sense if I were taking in one million plus for a salary I couldn't imagine myself thinking I need 18 million and I need to keep it all.

I'll ask this, lets pretend there is a natural disaster that's severe enough to keep supplies from the area. The guy who owns a gas station starts selling gas to hospitals to keep their generators going so people don't die at $500 per ounce. Is he price gouging or a master of business or fortunate enough to have gas by complete luck. No matter how you look at this he's an asshole and in many states he's price gouging.

 

[glenn1]

Thanks for the post that's loaded with silliness and assumptions.
For the record in a general sense if I were taking in one million plus for a salary I couldn't imagine myself thinking I need 18 million and I need to keep it all.

I'll ask this, lets pretend there is a natural disaster that's severe enough to keep supplies from the area. The guy who owns a gas station starts selling gas to hospitals to keep their generators going so people don't die at $500 per ounce. Is he price gouging or a master of business or fortunate enough to have gas by complete luck. No matter how you look at this he's an asshole and in many states he's price gouging.

Depends on which you value more: (A) using higher prices as a way to allocate scarce resources and discourage the uses that provide the least utility, or (B) don't want to have "price gouging" and have supplies run out quickly to whoever can get to the seller first, screw the person who would die if they don't get their supply. I guess you pick B.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Depends on which you value more: (A) using higher prices as a way to allocate scarce resources and discourage the uses that provide the least utility, or (B) don't want to have "price gouging" and have supplies run out quickly to whoever can get to the seller first, screw the person who would die if they don't get their supply. I guess you pick B.

So in other words they're being greedy. Thanks Glenn
See I can play the word game and make crap up too.

 

[glenn1]

So in other words they're being greedy. Thanks Glenn
See I can play the word game and make crap up too.

Yeah, they're being greedy. And it serves a larger purpose because people hoard resources in emergencies. I'd rather someone be greedy and charge $500 for gasoline rather than he not be greedy and a hospital full of people die because supplies of fuel for their generators ran out. Yeah I know that you think it's crazy talk that I'd rather someone make some money than hundreds die.