Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 124 posts

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

#81

Post by learc83 »

icebraining wrote: post #71
learc83 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of a human life to the individual who's life it belongs cannot be calculated in economic terms (at least for most people) because it is unbounded, i.e., there is not a price that most people will accept for their life. The economic value of a human life to society can be calculated. Under your theory a fair method to price life saving drugs doesn't exist. The person getting the drugs will effectively extrac…

The value of a human life to the individual who's life it belongs cannot be calculated in economic terms (at least for most people) because it is unbounded, i.e., there is not a price that most people will accept for their life. Not really true, I'm afraid. People killing themselves (or allowing others to kill them) to ensure a payout to their families happens with some regularity.

1. My qualifier "most people" covers that situation, because it is very very rare.

2. Usually this happens because they place a higher value on their children's life and well being than their own. So even in the case were someone does place a value on their own life, it's only in relation to someone else's life.

The case of 2 is interesting because it shows that of the people who would accept a finite sum for their own life, very few would accept a finite sum for their chidren's life.

Since paying for the child's healthcare is the responsibility of the parent in a free market, we are back to my previous point that their is no fair free market way to price life saving drugs.

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

#82

Post by alkonaut »

larrys wrote: 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…

You seem to believe that one could assign a value to a drug, and that rational actors in a market would choose to buy that drug at a cost at or under this value.

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

#83

Post by zo1 »

gaadd33 wrote: post #80
zo1 wrote: post #63

I kept writing, scrapping and re-writing responses to you. Trying different ideas/methods/examples, perhaps to hopefully enlighten you to alternative ways of thinking about this topic. And then I realized that it probably won't work. You seem to be under the impression that this individual seeks ill towards you. That he values monetary profit over your well-being in some sort of immoral way, evil way. You've been hea…

Is it even possible to be in a position to take care of someone's every need? Ignoring the realities of unknown diseases without cures, unless you have dynastic wealth it seems unlikely that you can, with 100% probability, have the resources to take care of every scenario. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with a large number of scenarios.

Well, I didn't mean all possible scenarios. I.e. catastrophes, wars, acts-of-government(CPS), etc.

I meant it in the more plausible sense: Health, Safety, Education, Food.

These are things that not everyone is entirely sure of before they make the leap into parenthood. Despite them being very simple/intuitive, they're very often neglected, and I feel that that is one of the worst injustices/acts of cruelty an individual can do.

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

#84

Post by darklajid »

zo1 wrote: post #63

I kept writing, scrapping and re-writing responses to you. Trying different ideas/methods/examples, perhaps to hopefully enlighten you to alternative ways of thinking about this topic. And then I realized that it probably won't work. You seem to be under the impression that this individual seeks ill towards you. That he values monetary profit over your well-being in some sort of immoral way, evil way. You've been hea…

Others were more civil in their reply to you. I just have to call your comment complete bullshit.

I ignore the first two paragraphs which are devoid of content, but try to set you up as reasonable person.

Then you bring up parenthood. And boy, you messed that up. I don't think you can fail any further. Not only are you trying to set up (your own!) rules to even _have_ a child, you are then ending in a - as far as I can read this comment - condescending 'be better than your parents were' pat-on-the-back comment.

Here's the thing: You cannot make sure that you can take care of a child's needs. You might be prepared to support a kid and looking forward to a family of three. Then you get twins or more. Or your kid has health problems (let's take a really common but overused example: Trisomy 21). The former just means that your calculation was off by one or more and you basically pay twice+ of what you planned for - and arguably have more than twice the amount of stress.

The latter is something that influences the rest of your life. You probably _planned_ to pay for college, but now you pay for a lot more and basically will have a child that will need support in one way or another.

You claimed that the GP shouldn't have kids if they couldn't afford to take care of them. I say that you don't even _know_ what kids need before you get them. Yes, if you live under a bridge you might not be in the best position to have a child. No, "I might need help" isn't a reason to have no child though.

And frankly, I'm so sad that you really think that way. In my world, society is meant to support people in need. If I lose my job tomorrow, I'm glad to know that the people around me will support me - through taxes - until I get a new job. If I have a kid that needs help I'm glad to know that the people around me will contribute to make its life bearable/comfortable/as good as possible.

Actually, that's the only thing a state is good for. If it cannot provide that, why would you associate yourself with it in the first place? If it doesn't help you when you're in need of help, why .. wouldn't you ditch it and shake your head while you're traveling across the border?

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

#85

Post by zo1 »

kbenson wrote: post #77
zo1 wrote: post #63

I kept writing, scrapping and re-writing responses to you. Trying different ideas/methods/examples, perhaps to hopefully enlighten you to alternative ways of thinking about this topic. And then I realized that it probably won't work. You seem to be under the impression that this individual seeks ill towards you. That he values monetary profit over your well-being in some sort of immoral way, evil way. You've been hea…

Wow, in a single comment you've managed to do the following: - Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject, implying the only reason then could hold their belief is because they cannot or will not think about this subject in other ways. - Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically in…

>"Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject"

They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/personal/emotional way. I didn't "cast" them into that.

>"Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically invested in a point of view that is influenced by others."

Again, the person I responded to had a very clear emotional/irrational reaction to a reasonable alternative to the prevailing thought on the subject.

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

#86

Post by DanBC »

jkimmel wrote: post #45

It appears Martin Shkreli has tried this a couple times before. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/02/20/mor... In the past, he actually planned to limit access to the existing drug (ie. the one he increased the price on) to prevent a competitor from creating a new generic formulation and gaining FDA approval. It appears he modeled this heinous approach on a maneuver by Celgene to prevent production o…

Celgene are currently engaged in shenanigans in the UK.

There are currently two main chemotherapies used for pancreatic cancer in England. First line is folfirinox. But that can have nasty side effects, so the less effective gemcitabine is used because it has less side effects.

Celgene make abraxane. Abraxane (by Celgene's own data) isn't as good as current first treatment; and has many side effects so can't be used as second line treatment.

Celgene's data shows median life extension on abraxane as two months.

A charity - pancreaticcanceraction.org - has started a petition to get NICE to change the decision. The petition states abraxane gives two years extra life which is true for a few people. Equally true would be "abraxane gives two days extra life".

The shenanigans come from the amount of funding and campaigning material Celgene has provided to pancreaticcanceraction.org, while making it seem like they don't have any connection.

https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/the-cost-of-nab...

https://pancreaticcanceraction.org/news/english-patients-nic...

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

#87

Post by username223 »

ikeboy wrote: post #17
powera wrote: 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",…

You're the guy who won't save the drowning child because your suit would get dirty, right? No, wait, you'd ask the kid if she would pay to have it dry-cleaned, then still refuse because you could probably get her to pay even more.

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

#88

Post by darklajid »

ikeboy wrote: post #18
gdrulia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I'm confused. The article is about a drug that was sold at price X (13.5) that is now offered at price Y (750).

Now, in my world every rational person has to see that this is insane. There's no way that the previous price was even remotely possible (even with a loss) that requires the new price.

I don't see any data that supports your 'no one would be willing to make it for less' argument. The only reasons that doesn't seem to happen are either technical (the monopoly on the drugs manufacturing process) or legal (can't do that or you have to pay for .. creating cheaper drugs). Can you back your unlikely scenario? Looking at the article in question, is 750 the 'right' price and no one's willing to create the drug for less? Were they losing about 700 a pop before they increased the price?

What. The. Hell?

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

#89

Post by ikeboy »

CydeWeys wrote: post #62
ikeboy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what specific regulation would fix this? The medical industry is too heavily regulated (see http://fdareview.org/harm.shtml ).

Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. No one should be allowed to come into an established market, buy up life-saving drugs, jack up the prices hugely for no good reason, and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process. This is one of the best arguments for more regulation I can think of. He's a multi-multi-millionaire literally killing people to make even more…

Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough.

Technically, both are possible, but you're describing the situation inaccurately:

and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process.

The article says that they're providing the drug for free for those who can't afford it. So no one is dying due to the price being raised.

Anyway, one poor outcome doesn't mean more regulation is needed. You need to weigh the costs against the benefits, and when that is done, the costs end out higher, even on the existing regulation regime.

Can you propose specific regulations that would fix this, and not cause more harm elsewhere?

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

#90

Post by zo1 »

darklajid wrote: post #84
zo1 wrote: post #63

I kept writing, scrapping and re-writing responses to you. Trying different ideas/methods/examples, perhaps to hopefully enlighten you to alternative ways of thinking about this topic. And then I realized that it probably won't work. You seem to be under the impression that this individual seeks ill towards you. That he values monetary profit over your well-being in some sort of immoral way, evil way. You've been hea…

Others were more civil in their reply to you. I just have to call your comment complete bullshit. I ignore the first two paragraphs which are devoid of content, but try to set you up as reasonable person. Then you bring up parenthood. And boy, you messed that up. I don't think you can fail any further. Not only are you trying to set up (your own!) rules to even _have_ a child, you are then ending in a - as far as I c…

>"And frankly, I'm so sad that you really think that way. In my world, society is meant to support people in need."

And in my world, I have chosen to bear the responsibilities of taking care of the ones I love. Because they are the most important individuals to me, and my morals necessitate that I do not impose my will on others by virtue of the state.

>"Here's the thing: You cannot make sure that you can take care of a child's needs. You might be prepared to support a kid and looking forward to a family of three."

I get the general point you are making. And I fully agree with you. Unforeseen circumstances happen, and they can be unplanned for. However, in my comment I meant more in terms of general care, which is something that is sorely neglected in today's world where we all expect the state to foot the bill. I.e. Food, basic healthcare, education and safety.

I do my best to mitigate all of those. Life insurance, disability insurance, and unusual amounts of saving.

>"Actually, that's the only thing a state is good for. If it cannot provide that, why would you associate yourself with it in the first place"

Agreed. And yet it does not do that. And doubly-so, we are not calling the state out on it (referendum?). Yet we're perfectly content on espousing it as some sort of "ideal" to bash horrible free-thinking individuals with. As far as I am able to, I don't associate myself with the state. But we both know there is no place for us to go "across the border". It's either another state, a war-torn country (Somalia, etc), or inhospitable water.

Post reply on HN