Live data from Hacker News

A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

nytimes.com

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#11
post #3

My first thought was generics since it's so old, but this is simply amazing: > With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim’s distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing. > The switch from drugstores t…

If I remember correctly, when Provigil became generic, they bought the company producing the generic form. They also slightly changed the drug and patented a new form as Nuvigil.

Last year, I asked my physician's assistant (I have never actually met my personal doctor) for a prescription and he told me that he didn't believe Provigil/Modafinil was even made anymore and tried almost emphatically to get me to take Nuvigil instead. I said no and that I'd try anyway. It was available and my insurance covered the Provigil ($750/month).

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#13
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, unless you feel that people who use medicine are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. Were it not for a (probably illegal in this case) monopoly, other people would be able to make that same pill for $5 per tablet. And then nobody would pay $50 for the pill. Supply and demand IS NOT the same as "charging everyone as much as they will pay for everything". It's inherently unfair to everyone who has to buy…

Quite an opener, do you practice hyperbole often? Fairness is whatever two people will agree to pay for a service. Imagine how silly it would be if we all paid the same amount for seats on an airline - which is how it worked before deregulation. Many seats would go empty, the utility would not be maximized, and we'd be missing out on the great transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

And everybody also generally hates the airlines and feels the pricing is unfair because of this.

You might say that without it airplanes would not fly at all, and you might be right. But it's incredulous to claim that without these profits the medicine would not exist at all; it has existed already for 5 decades. (And we have patents as a system specifically designed to allow for funding the creation of drugs)

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#14
post #5

While shocking people have to keep in mind that pricing relates to more than cost but more importantly value. The fact that a particular product or service was priced a certain way for years is not as relevant as it might seem on the surface. I pay a very low price for a generic drug (copay doesn't even matter) but the value to me of the drug is much higher. The non generic version is priced perhaps 10 times as much…

What you're saying makes perfect sense on paper, but unfortunately reality is as always slightly more complex.

Such simple thinking is full of the holes for exploitation and there will always be someone who will exploit them. Medicine is especially sensitive, because medicine can be priceless in value for the human who needs it, but that same human might not be able to pay that much. You can introduce government help, but if such exploitation is allowed, it would simply end up in a waste of tax money.

One thing is to allow companies who invest into products creation to receive the profit from it by using monopoly and charging as much as they like, and completely another is buying the company and starting to charge many times higher for the medicine that was available for years.

This might not be a popular view, but I can see no reason to think that such an exploitation should be tolerated. I simply cannot see how such things benefit humans as a society. I might be missing here something and if I do, please let me know.

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#15
post #6
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8302451 .

Feature request: Along those lines, I was trying to find an article (using algolia) which discussed different names for AWS service names confusion and it was useless for that purpose (given search terms I tried). Since I always clear my browser history I couldn't see the links that I had visited. A nice feature would be if there was a way to note which article links I clicked on or which comment threads I have visit…

You can see which ones you've upvoted at https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=larrys (only works for you).

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#16
post #3

My first thought was generics since it's so old, but this is simply amazing: > With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim’s distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing. > The switch from drugstores t…

How can what be true? The price of the old out of patent drug was too cheap and the target market too small for generic manufacturers to bother making it while it was widely available. Now that the prices have gone up they're having trouble getting samples to make a competing generic.

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#17
post #7
post #5

While shocking people have to keep in mind that pricing relates to more than cost but more importantly value. The fact that a particular product or service was priced a certain way for years is not as relevant as it might seem on the surface. I pay a very low price for a generic drug (copay doesn't even matter) but the value to me of the drug is much higher. The non generic version is priced perhaps 10 times as much…

No, unless you feel that people who use medicine are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. Were it not for a (probably illegal in this case) monopoly, other people would be able to make that same pill for $5 per tablet. And then nobody would pay $50 for the pill. Supply and demand IS NOT the same as "charging everyone as much as they will pay for everything". It's inherently unfair to everyone who has to buy…

The question is, if it costs me X to make a product, and the value to you is 100X, who captures the 99X spread? I could charge 99X, you would pay it since the value is higher, and I'll capture most of it. I could charge 2X, it's still worth it to me to produce it, and you'll capture most of it. What value here is most fair? Why is one value fairer than another? The standard economic answer is "let the market decide", and that works, up to a point. If you reject that, you need a better way to decide. Let's say you have a government agency set prices: how do they choose?

You've just pushed the problem around. Saying "get rid of the free market" in only a solution if you have a concrete alternative.

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#18
post #14
post #5

While shocking people have to keep in mind that pricing relates to more than cost but more importantly value. The fact that a particular product or service was priced a certain way for years is not as relevant as it might seem on the surface. I pay a very low price for a generic drug (copay doesn't even matter) but the value to me of the drug is much higher. The non generic version is priced perhaps 10 times as much…

What you're saying makes perfect sense on paper, but unfortunately reality is as always slightly more complex. Such simple thinking is full of the holes for exploitation and there will always be someone who will exploit them. Medicine is especially sensitive, because medicine can be priceless in value for the human who needs it, but that same human might not be able to pay that much. You can introduce government help…

The question is how we can fix this systematically without making bigger problems. Should a government agency set prices? What if the company stops making the drug, then? The price is high because no other companies are willing to make it for lower, after all. Note that the drug in question is not under patent.

I don't think you'd advocate for literally forcing the company to make it and sell it for a specific price.

There's also the concerns I went over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10248817

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#19
post #17
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, unless you feel that people who use medicine are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. Were it not for a (probably illegal in this case) monopoly, other people would be able to make that same pill for $5 per tablet. And then nobody would pay $50 for the pill. Supply and demand IS NOT the same as "charging everyone as much as they will pay for everything". It's inherently unfair to everyone who has to buy…

The question is, if it costs me X to make a product, and the value to you is 100X, who captures the 99X spread? I could charge 99X, you would pay it since the value is higher, and I'll capture most of it. I could charge 2X, it's still worth it to me to produce it, and you'll capture most of it. What value here is most fair? Why is one value fairer than another? The standard economic answer is "let the market decide",…

I'm not saying "get rid of the free market". I'm saying that in a monopoly situation, there is no free market. And if there is no free market, claiming "the free market will work" is insanity, so we have no choice but to try something else.

Re: A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

#20
post #17
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, unless you feel that people who use medicine are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. Were it not for a (probably illegal in this case) monopoly, other people would be able to make that same pill for $5 per tablet. And then nobody would pay $50 for the pill. Supply and demand IS NOT the same as "charging everyone as much as they will pay for everything". It's inherently unfair to everyone who has to buy…

The question is, if it costs me X to make a product, and the value to you is 100X, who captures the 99X spread? I could charge 99X, you would pay it since the value is higher, and I'll capture most of it. I could charge 2X, it's still worth it to me to produce it, and you'll capture most of it. What value here is most fair? Why is one value fairer than another? The standard economic answer is "let the market decide",…

The thing is, the value for these products is infinite. If people don't have them, they'll die.
Post reply on HN