|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Profiteering from exploiting the desperately ill
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Two very similar stories have hit the news recently.
Drug price increases by 5000%
TB Drug increases by 2000%
In both cases, the drug is an old one that has been around for many years and now the price in the US has dramatically increased overnight for no apparent reason, other than the desire to make a fast buck at the expense of the desperately ill.
The people responsible for these increases really should burn in hell.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
My son's meds were $700 per month until they went generic this year and now we get it for $12 a month. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Think how greedy the pharmaceutical companies are to make drugs for schizophrenia this expensive. The typical patient starts using it in their twenties and has to take it every day for the next fifty or sixty years.
I was exposed to TB while I lived in England -- failed the skin test on re-entry to the U. S. I've been just waiting for a flare-up. Better save up.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
The thing about the American health care system is, this is only remarkable because it was so brazen. Other than that-- the fact that it happened overnight, making it so obvious-- it's exactly what's been happening for decades. Not just Big Pharma (although they're the worst) but private-practice doctors & surgeons, insurers, and particularly hospitals have been playing this game for a very long time (see detailed expose by Time magazine)
It's not mysterious. They are doing it because they can. Because the American health care system basically gives them the right to go to anyone's house, anytime, and take whatever they want. Or they die.
Obamacare helped a bit on the edges-- it solved the access problem, which was huge. But it did nothing about controlling costs-- as this proves.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've got stuff on Facebook giving the (office) address, phone number and email address for Martin Shkreli (why do I keep thinking that should be Shrek? They're both ogres, but Shrek is far too nice an ogre to be associated in my mind with this monstrous profiteer).
Is there some US legislation that would prevent the other companies making these drugs supplying the US market? This is an out-of-patent medicine, that whoever supplies the UK NHS can make a (probably small) profit on at 43p per tablet - which was 5% of the price in the US even before this price increase. Why aren't manufacturers elsewhere in the world creaming the US market by selling these drugs at a fraction of the prices charged by US manufacturers, while still turning a profit?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there some US legislation that would prevent the other companies making these drugs supplying the US market? This is an out-of-patent medicine, that whoever supplies the UK NHS can make a (probably small) profit on at 43p per tablet - which was 5% of the price in the US even before this price increase. Why aren't manufacturers elsewhere in the world creaming the US market by selling these drugs at a fraction of the prices charged by US manufacturers, while still turning a profit?
The last I've read, a drug patent lasts 20 years in the US. It seems to take too long for the FDA to approve a drug after it is invented. In looking up the 20 years, I saw that it takes years to get the approval. After the 20, I suppose the drug can go generic. The anti-depressant that I take costs 10 cents a pill.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, that's my question. If this drug costs $1 a pill to make and is out-of-patent why was it selling for $13.50 in the first place? Why wasn't it already priced out by generic versions at $1.50? I know some people will pay a premium for the non-generic, but that is a massive mark-up which would surely make space for the generic market. And, of course, at $750 it would never sell. What is it about the US system that means there isn't a generic version already, or that the generic and trade-name versions selling elsewhere at <$1 per pill can't be imported and sold in the US?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's my question. If this drug costs $1 a pill to make and is out-of-patent why was it selling for $13.50 in the first place? Why wasn't it already priced out by generic versions at $1.50? I know some people will pay a premium for the non-generic, but that is a massive mark-up which would surely make space for the generic market. And, of course, at $750 it would never sell. What is it about the US system that means there isn't a generic version already, or that the generic and trade-name versions selling elsewhere at <$1 per pill can't be imported and sold in the US?
The best I can tell is that you can't but you can and you really don't know what you're buying so you need a reliable outfit to vet your supplier. Here is an interesting article that seems to address what you're wondering about. With me paying $9 for a 90 day supply, I haven't had to wonder about it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
So, according to that, it is legal for the manufacturer to ship medicines into the US. Which means that GlaxoSmithKline, who manufacture the same product in the UK at 5% the pre-massive-inflation repricing, could export it to the US in competition with Turing Pharmaceuticals. Which doesn't even involve the question marks over the quality of generics. Which raises the question of why don't GSK do that? Part of it is presumably written into the sale of US marketing rights from GSK to CorePharma in 2010, but does that still hold after the sale of those rights to Turing?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I'll go out on a limb, Alan, and say that I don't know. Perhaps someone with a working knowledge of the international prescription drug business can answer it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Part of it is presumably written into the sale of US marketing rights from GSK to CorePharma in 2010, but does that still hold after the sale of those rights to Turing?
At a quick guess, yes: it's highly likely that any terms and conditions on things like that would still be enforceable.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We've got a mess going on right now with one of our immigrants being handed a prescription for something that costs 10,000$ per month to treat some form of blood cancer. He's stage 4, I believe. And of course he has no finances to speak of.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Alan--
AIUI, it's money and power. Not pure, but really simple.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
That's capitalism - and it's going to get a whole lot worse when TTIP is retified.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It is money and power, but it's also to do with US drug registration.
Daraprim (pyrimethamine) was developed back in the glory days of Burroughs Wellcome, whose big pharm successors are GSK. It's long out of patent.
Generally - because of the costs of demonstrating the efficacy and registering a new drug, the standard practice is to recoup the research costs over the existing life of the patent, which may only be a few years. After that, it becomes feasible for generic manufacturers to join the market, and the price drops a huge amount. But often the original manufacturer will continue to market the drug competitively against the generic manufacturers (e.g. Ranbaxy). That's the case here.
The step you are missing out here is the additional ongoing costs of continued registration in the USA. I can't tell you what the difference is as compared with elsewhere, but if you check out the pharmacy costs of any drug, you'll see it is almost invariably more expensive the USA than anywhere else.
With a lot of these older drugs, new drugs have come along to eat away a lot of their market, and the old drug is retained for special needs where it remains the drug of choice. That makes the registration cost burden much higher. A lot of the bigger companies have been getting rid of these drugs in the USA from their books by selling them on, and the buyers are often small, marketing-oriented outfits like the ones discussed here. A substantial price-hike usually ensues. This has apparently happened to numerous drugs in the US.
But the point is that they can get away with this because generics would need to go through the extra regulatory hoops present in the US system. Maybe some might be tempted in due course, but it will probably take several years.
I'm the very opposite of anti-regulation in these things, but the question needs to be asked as to why it is so expensive to maintain the registration of existing drugs in the US. You can get the same drug for about $1.50 if you cross the border to Canada or Mexico. The way it works seems at present to shield the shysters rather than protect the sick, which can't be right.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Protecting the sick?! You poor, naive fool.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Sorree!
But it comes to a pass when big pharma themselves can't hack it.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The legal situation around international pharmaceuticals is hugely complicated. Yes, there might be a market for a generic, but there would be costs involved to bring it to market, and if there is not a large market for this, it might not be worth while.
Most Pharma companies keep their old meds available at a cheap price with the acknowledgement that they are no longer making money from them, but they have covered their costs, and they have probably been superseded so they are liable to vanish.
This piece of dog faeces seems to misunderstand the market he has bought into. It is not a business that produces quick profits. It can make huge profits, but it is long-term. The reason that these companies charge very large amounts for their new drugs is to cover the massive development costs (including the costs of those products that didn't make it). They often need to recoup hundreds of millions of pounds for a drug. This is the market, and when they have made their money back, and profit, they then reduce the cost to a nominal sum.
It is these not-quite-latest meds that are crucial to the poor across the world. That is the sop the Pharma companies make to justify their huge prices.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The step you are missing out here is the additional ongoing costs of continued registration in the USA. I can't tell you what the difference is as compared with elsewhere, but if you check out the pharmacy costs of any drug, you'll see it is almost invariably more expensive the USA than anywhere else.
Do you have reference for this? I find it hard to believe that annual government registration fees are a large contributor the relatively high cost of drugs in the US.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We've got a mess going on right now with one of our immigrants being handed a prescription for something that costs 10,000$ per month to treat some form of blood cancer. He's stage 4, I believe. And of course he has no finances to speak of.
In USA, cancer drugs is a major ethical issue.
Oncologists make a lot of their income by buying chemo drugs wholesale and selling them to patients retail. They have strong motivation to prescribe the drugs even when there's no way the drug will help the person's health, and motivation to prescribe less effective more profitable drugs of those available. Here's an old article but nothing has changed.
A friend who is a cancer survivor says if you want to survive, you have to go to one of the research clinics (she went to MD Anderson) to get objectively valid treatment instead of personal profit oriented treatment. She said she knew a mutual friend would not survive when she learned the friend was using a private doc; the husband lost his farm and home paying for the cancer drugs the doctor sold for persnal profit.
I had a friend whose docs took every cent he could raise or borrow, then said "hopeless, prepare to die." Duh! It was stage 4 pancreatic, average life expectancy 6 months, no one lives a year; the expensive drugs didn't even give him an extra month, but docs got to bleed him a quarter million before stating the obvious. One doc in the hospital said it was hopeless but the others gladly kept finding drugs to ply him with for a personal profit.
Capitalism American style will destroy us all, body and soul.
Before paying for chemo, ask the doc how many people he has personally seen healed by this drug from this cancer at stage 4. The answer (if an answer is given instead of the question dodged) is usually "none but you might be the first."
How much should we be spending on a less than 1% chance of extending a life painfully a few months? Life has no price but bankrupting the family or community is not right. At some point we have to accept that life here is temporary.
Cannabis oil does wonders for cancer, even stage 4, but you have to live in the right state or you risk being jailed for seeking health. American medicine is about profit, not about health.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is not a business that produces quick profits. It can make huge profits, but it is long-term. The reason that these companies charge very large amounts for their new drugs is to cover the massive development costs (including the costs of those products that didn't make it). They often need to recoup hundreds of millions of pounds for a drug. This is the market, and when they have made their money back, and profit, they then reduce the cost to a nominal sum.
Most of the real life-saving drugs, especially for rare diseases without a large market, were developed not by Big Pharma but in government labs and universities. Big Pharma does have a large R&D budget and huge costs bringing a drug to market, but most of that budget is spent on curing things that have already been cured-- finding another treatment for erectile dysfunction or baldness or whatever, to replace the old drug that's going off patent. So yeah, Big Pharma will tout their huge R&D costs but it's all smoke and mirrors. The real reason they are charging these big prices is not to recover their costs. The reason they are charging these exorbitant prices is because they can. And the only difference in this case is that the guy was more brazen about it.
Again, it's the problem with making health care a free-market, for-profit commodity. Free-market forces work just fine for voluntary consumerism like buying a new car or new shoes when you can research the product ahead of time or walk away from the bargaining table if you don't like the terms. That's not true with health care. Imagine if fire or police protection operating the same way as health care: the fire dept would wait until your house was on fire, then the hook & ladder truck would pull up at your home with the blaze raging and begin the negotiations with the homeowner on how much you're willing to pay them to pull out the hoses and put out the fire.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine if fire or police protection operating the same way as health care: the fire dept would wait until your house was on fire, then the hook & ladder truck would pull up at your home with the blaze raging and begin the negotiations with the homeowner on how much you're willing to pay them to pull out the hoses and put out the fire.
I heard once that Marc Antony, of ancient Rome, had that kind of racket--and sometimes may have started the fires.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
The costs of brand-name antihistamines in Canada has always irritated me - I see a 10 day supply of proprietary drugs being sold for $CAD25.00. I can buy the same drug in India for pennies a pill. I last bought some in 2013 with an expiry date of 2016, and they do the trick. It looks like my supply will run out at the expiry date, give or take 200 pills or so. One of the best medical bargains I have ever made. But it sure makes me ask why, while shaking my head - and the only thing I can come up with is economy of scale.
Since antihistamines are OTC and not prescription drugs here, I expect my costs will rise dramatically a year or so from now. Unless I get to go back and bring in another 3 years' worth.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
cliffdweller - I don't entirely agree. I have read Ben Goldacre, and I know that there is a lot to despise about the Pharma companies, but I think the model I outlined is what they try to do. That is, they charge a lot for new drugs (because they can), and they charge much less for older drugs (which they then explain are not as good as the new one they have just launched).
In truth, I think they have far more serious things to answer for. It should mean that for most problems, there is a new, wizzy drug that is better than anything else before it, including sliced bread; and an older version that is identical, but in an unfashionable colour, and probably a hipster beard. There is then a choice to make.
This guy is breaking that model. The company has had the money from this drug already, probably made many millions out of it. Now is the time to let people have it for a relatively nominal price.
The Pharma companies do cheat and manipulate to keep their income stream flowing. I have no doubt about that. But they have tended to play by a set of loosely defined rules which make this deceit seem less bad. Now they seem to be breaking those rules.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
SC wrote:- quote:
This guy is breaking that model. The company has had the money from this drug already, probably made many millions out of it. Now is the time to let people have it for a relatively nominal price.
Not quite - it's a startup company, and they only have two products at present. They bought the rights to it from the existing rights-holder along with the registration, and as I said earlier, as it's the only formulation of this drug currently registered in the USA then it gives Turing the ability to pull this sort of stunt.
The money on the original drug was made mostly by Burroughs Wellcome, which in those days was run as a not-for-profit business more or less - the technical profits were directed to The Wellcome Trust (which still exists). Glaxo Wellcome (as it was then) inherited the drug, as part of the deal when the companies merged.
It's a shame they merged. I worked for Wellcome for a year before I went to Uni. It was quite an inspirational outfit to work for in some ways, and probably miles away from what big pharma has become. But even then the talk was starting about the need to merge with someone else, the principal reason being the increasing costs of registration and the risk burden that posed if there was a gap in the pipeline.
DaveW - I'll need to get back to you.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Coming back to Alan’s question - while I have no idea if this is the case in this specific instance, it bears saying that big Pharma companies get their backsides sued off by the competition authorities All. The. Time for making cosy agreements not to muscle in on each other’s patch. They are in cahoots with each other in some very unsavoury ways.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
cliffdweller - I don't entirely agree. I have read Ben Goldacre, and I know that there is a lot to despise about the Pharma companies, but I think the model I outlined is what they try to do. That is, they charge a lot for new drugs (because they can), and they charge much less for older drugs (which they then explain are not as good as the new one they have just launched).
In truth, I think they have far more serious things to answer for. It should mean that for most problems, there is a new, wizzy drug that is better than anything else before it, including sliced bread; and an older version that is identical, but in an unfashionable colour, and probably a hipster beard. There is then a choice to make.
This guy is breaking that model. The company has had the money from this drug already, probably made many millions out of it. Now is the time to let people have it for a relatively nominal price.
The Pharma companies do cheat and manipulate to keep their income stream flowing. I have no doubt about that. But they have tended to play by a set of loosely defined rules which make this deceit seem less bad. Now they seem to be breaking those rules.
But again, the only thing different here is how flagrant it is. Before they would raise the prices more subtlety-- more gradual increases rather than 5000% overnight. That's certainly smart from a PR sense, but I don't see it as particularly more moral than the more dramatic overnight mark-up that happened here which drew our attention.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I last bought some in 2013 with an expiry date of 2016, and they do the trick. It looks like my supply will run out at the expiry date, give or take 200 pills or so.
Expiration dates are another scam. I was startled to see a less than one year date on the tylenol #3 I recently was prescribed - that pill lasts at least 10 years! Just a few years ago it was sold with a 4 year date.
Just like with food companies putting a 2 year expiration date on refined sugar (which never goes bad), the goal is to get you to throw away perfectly good stuff and rebuy - more profit than if you keep and use stuff you already have.
Syrups expire quickly; pills, I'll be startled if any lose potency over less than 5 years, I have some 30 year old codeine that was still fully effective when I used it recently (because I had run out of my 15 year old tylenol #3; I now have some new T#3, same effect as the 15 year old).
Look up shelf life extension program for more info. The US military does their own testing and their reports about how long drugs last are on line.
Here's a news article about the safety and effectiveness of some decades old drugs.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It is money and power, but it's also to do with US drug registration.
Daraprim (pyrimethamine) was developed back in the glory days of Burroughs Wellcome, whose big pharm successors are GSK. It's long out of patent
And Glaxo also make it - cheaply - really capitalist market forces would force this new bloke out of business.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's my question. If this drug costs $1 a pill to make and is out-of-patent why was it selling for $13.50 in the first place? Why wasn't it already priced out by generic versions at $1.50? I know some people will pay a premium for the non-generic, but that is a massive mark-up which would surely make space for the generic market. And, of course, at $750 it would never sell. What is it about the US system that means there isn't a generic version already, or that the generic and trade-name versions selling elsewhere at <$1 per pill can't be imported and sold in the US?
Most likely because the volume of demand is not high enough to justify another manufacturer's cost of setting up a competing production line to undercut the $13.50 price. Of course, $750 might be a different story.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I believe there is some law out there now that requires expiration dates, even on things like water and honey (2000 years and still good). I would suggest talking with a decent doctor or pharmacist before throwing away pills simply because they've reached the expiration date. On the other hand, there is at least one drug that does transform in a bad way if you keep it over date, which is tetracycline. There may be others--talk to the experts.
(how do I know this? there are/were some charities that accepted expired drugs for the use of the poor. Probably not legal anymore)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Obamacare helped a bit on the edges-- it solved the access problem, which was huge. But it did nothing about controlling costs-- as this proves.
ISTM, it is an actual cause in the rise of prices. There is another deep pocket which pharma hands reach into.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Part of the story is also about how economies are now organized. In days gone by, pre-Reagan Thatcher (in Canada, Mulroney), corporations paid relatively high taxes. Researchers in universities applied for grants via government agencies which administered the money and awarded the grants in the public interest. Drugs and other patentable things were then owned or partly owned by universities and organizations attached to them, managed in the public interest. Drugs were priced to make money for the institution, but market forces were only one aspect of pricing. Pricing and length of patent reflected the public contribution to the research via the grant system and governments had a lot more to say about it. With retention of vast amounts of money in corporate hands, the overpaid executives decide how much to charge.
The real solution involves either very intense regulation or a revision to a more progressive taxation policy and public administration of where grants go. The intensive regulation is a nonstarter though, because government people and corporate people are the same people.
The story about these overpriced drugs and gouging shows us that aspects of capitalism are broken.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The story about these overpriced drugs and gouging shows us that aspects of capitalism are broken.
Yes indeed. The breakage in this case is a regulation inconsistency.
The gouging is possible because government regulation makes it difficult for competitors to sell the drug in the US. (Some of that regulation is clearly good - we probably all think it's a goof thing that there are regulatory standards attached to the production of medicine. )
In this case, the regulation is sufficiently onerous to generate a de-facto monopoly, but there's no regulation of the price.
That's the problem - you can't have a government-enforced monopoly without regulating the prices charged by the monopolist.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Here's a news article about the safety and effectiveness of some decades old drugs.
"Some" expired medications "may" still be effective is hardly a sweeping demonstration of a generalised scam.
And did you actually read as far as the quote?
quote:
When the average reader reads this, the take-home message is not, 'Your expired medications are safe to take,' warned Cantrell
The purpose of expiry dates is to give you a guarantee. It's not meant as a promise that the drug won't work or will kill you after the expiry date, it's meant as a promise of its effectiveness before that date.
[ 24. September 2015, 22:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Obamacare helped a bit on the edges-- it solved the access problem, which was huge. But it did nothing about controlling costs-- as this proves.
ISTM, it is an actual cause in the rise of prices. There is another deep pocket which pharma hands reach into.
Actually, no it's not. There is absolutely nothing in Obamacare-- not one single thing-- that would cause a rise in prices, and a few things that should bring a lowering. The problem is, there's nothing in Obamacare to actually mandate lowering prices (cause that would be *gasp* socialism!). So lots and lots of pharm corp are raising prices and saying "cuz of Obama"-- just as a whole slew of insurance companies raised their rates in mid-2014 and sent out letters saying "cuz of Obama". Absolutely fallacious, of course. The real reason in both cases is "cuz we can". But the "cuz of Obama" line is working really, really well for a whole lot of corporations right now.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Obamacare helped a bit on the edges-- it solved the access problem, which was huge. But it did nothing about controlling costs-- as this proves.
ISTM, it is an actual cause in the rise of prices. There is another deep pocket which pharma hands reach into.
Actually, no it's not. There is absolutely nothing in Obamacare-- not one single thing-- that would cause a rise in prices,
I am not saying that the law contains anything, in itself, that causes prices to go up. Just that, prior to it passing, many uninsured Americans paid for meds out of pocket. Now that many of those are, insured now, perhaps drug companies are trying to take advantage.
Perhaps I am still incorrect, but since part of your rebuttal is a confirmation of the same idea...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Obamacare helped a bit on the edges-- it solved the access problem, which was huge. But it did nothing about controlling costs-- as this proves.
ISTM, it is an actual cause in the rise of prices. There is another deep pocket which pharma hands reach into.
Actually, no it's not. There is absolutely nothing in Obamacare-- not one single thing-- that would cause a rise in prices,
I am not saying that the law contains anything, in itself, that causes prices to go up. Just that, prior to it passing, many uninsured Americans paid for meds out of pocket. Now that many of those are, insured now, perhaps drug companies are trying to take advantage.
Perhaps I am still incorrect, but since part of your rebuttal is a confirmation of the same idea...
Yes, that is consistent with what I'm saying. It's not that Obamacare increased costs-- it's that it failed to restrain them. As a consequence a lot of health care providers have found it helpful to raise prizes then blame it on Obamacare. I've noticed it mostly with insurers, but no reason why Big Pharma shouldn't get in on the fun.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And did you actually read as far as the quote?
quote:
When the average reader reads this, the take-home message is not, 'Your expired medications are safe to take,' warned Cantrell
Disclaimers on general articles are required by the lawyers to avoid lawsuits by idiots; I've read long long long detailed lists of drugs the military found still safe and fully effective long after official expiration date, including every drug I've ever taken (except syrups, as I mentioned). The point is, do some research before throwing stuff out (drugs or food) just because it hit a suppose expiration date.
I have a friend who rejected a chocolate bar from me on Sept 1 because the expiration date was one day earlier, she said it's not edible. I said you think it was good yesterday and bad today? Yes. That's exactly the attitude the drug and food companies want you to have! More profit for them.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, use some common sense.
And, actually the first bit of common sense to use is not to buy more stuff than you will actually use in a reasonable amount of time. Which is where the manufacturers really cash in, and suppliers actively encourage over-purchasing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I thought the issue with expiry dates was that even the best intentioned drugs company isn't going to leave a medicine on the shelf for ten years to see what happens before bringing it to market.
Therefore, expiry dates are extrapolations based on the known chemical properties of the active ingredients. As it's ultimately guesswork, it's better to err on the side of caution. Obviously drugs companies have commercial reasons to be over-cautious, too, but it's not necessarily a scam.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And did you actually read as far as the quote?
quote:
When the average reader reads this, the take-home message is not, 'Your expired medications are safe to take,' warned Cantrell
Disclaimers on general articles are required by the lawyers to avoid lawsuits by idiots;
And that's exactly why expiration dates are needed, as well.
They are needed so that we don't all have to do the research you're fond of. If YOU want to do it and have superior knowledge to the rest of us, knock yourself out.
But don't pretend you've got any kind of proof that this means all pills can be kept around for years. I've got my own anecdote to show that it is indeed possible for a pill to go off.
[ 25. September 2015, 06:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I see that someone has finally undercut the Daraprim monopoly in the US, at $1 per pill rather than the earlier $13 inflated to $750 by Turing. Even though that's without the expensive FDA approval it can still be prescribed.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I see that someone has finally undercut the Daraprim monopoly in the US, at $1 per pill rather than the earlier $13 inflated to $750 by Turing. Even though that's without the expensive FDA approval it can still be prescribed.
Wow. Didn't know that could happen. How is it that particular drug can be prescribed without FDA approval? Is it because someone with some pull at FDA wants the drug without having to wait for years? What other drugs can be sold without FDA approval?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I assume it means that doctors are free to prescribe whatever they want, probably including homeopathic "cures", with the expectation being that being qualified to practice medicine gives the doctor the expertise to know what the patient needs. From what I remember when doing some background reading about drug costs a few weeks ago, most generic medicines haven't got FDA approval for that particular product.
I wonder whether the same would apply to the medical insurance people deciding whether to pay for treatment that includes a drug not approved by the FDA?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Well, "'Pharma bro' Martin Shkreli smirks and stays silent before Congress" (CS Monitor).
Shkreli's behavior was extremely brazen: smirking (evidently throughout the hearing), and mouthing off in a tweet afterwards.
Congress does not like to be disrespected. His lawyer needs to put him under lock and key, somewhere--whether hotel or private rest cure--before Congress does.
(Not defending Shkreli at all. I've just seen lots of footage of Congressional hearings, over the years, and the idea that anyone would be so stupid as to openly behave that way is boggling.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Saw this footage this morning. The phrase "made my blood boil" is much-overused IMO but in this case is absolutely justified.
What a horrid little shit he is.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What an idiot. He had made the top 10 on the "most riveled people in the US" list, but had probably succeeded in slipping off that by a combination of time and competition from Trump and others. Then, decides it's a good idea to behave at a Congressional hearing in a manner that is practically guaranteed to be reported even in the midst of primaries.
He's either incredibly stupid, or he wants to be hated.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Or he is someone with an abnormal mental state. Looking at him, he looks like the boy at the back of the class who leans back and sneers at the teacher while flicking bits of screwed up paper across the room. Someone still like that as an adult has something wrong.
From the text, it looks as though he encouraged the same attitude around the company.
Could the US import generic copies of the drug from India? If it's been around that long, why is it still in patent?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Yeah, I wondered about his mental state. Drugs? Needs meds? Something.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
