Live data from Hacker News

Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

nytimes.com

131–140 of 461 posts

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really shocking to such an anti-technological development comment on site about technological development. If the federal government had locked down all IT development in the 1980s as you proposing they do for pharmaceuticals, we wouldn't have this forum to comment on, much less the industry it is built around.

It really isn't comparable. Computers are tools. Drugs are health. They are a public good and a natural human right. Holding people's health hostage is unacceptable whether you do it with a knife in an alley, or a capitalist health system. Mixing them up like the USA system does is a category error.

They are directly comparable. New drugs don't materialize out of thin air any more than the iPhones or any other applications of basic internet protocols did.

Imagine if in the early 90s we had stiffed cellular phone technology because "only the rich have access to it" or general internet/network technology because "only banks and giant corporations have access to it."

Thanks to capitalism, the technology is now so permeates all sectors of society that some have argued that access it that internet access and smart phones are a human right that should be socialized by the government.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#132
post #94

What prevents US hospitals from importing the drug, for example from Europe?

Anything going that route will lack FDA approval/indications/contraindications, a Medicare baseline price, and insurance companies willing to pay for it. This makes the average hospital less willing to lean in the direction of self-importation. Granted, this is import restrictions notwithstanding. Some substances can't even be brought across the border except under penalty of imprisonment for smuggling in a controlle…

Thanks; I thought that for corporations, importing drugs was possible. So, basically, big European pharma needs to produce its drugs for the US market in the US?

Anyway, how ironic:

> lack ... a Medicare baseline price

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping voters in good health is a good motivator too.

Hence the manufactured outrage at "socialism". The only way to make people consciously vote to stay poor and sick is to convince them that God, freedom and apple pie depend on supporting team blue rather than team red.

That makes for a superficially witty slogan but look at inner cities.

Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years and they're still poor.

Getting people out of poverty is a lot more complicated than which political party one supports.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#134
post #120
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loads of things have been handed over from the government to companies within The Netherlands. Your general statement that governments are not good I highly doubt. Especially for basic services, governments seem to run them cheaper and more reliably.

When you say "cheaper" you mean to partialy subsidised services. I'm refering to tollroads, train networks, healthcare, pensions, etc. What you "pay" is not the real cost, but paid for in good part by the Government's budget.

I'm pretty sure they mean 'cheaper' as in 'lower total cost including that incurred by the government' not just 'the end consumer pays less'.

It is strange that you seem to believe the free market is the only way to achieve efficiency.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is preventing a different generics manufacturer to enter the market at that point? How long can an exploit like that go on?

The cost to setup a process and maintain it according to FDA requirements. The market size is likely just under the cost to establish the manufacturing capacity for the US market.

I guess that maintaining the process isn't that expensive, considering the previous price (which, I'm pretty sure, wasn't kept at a loss).

So, probably, it's setting the process up which is expensive.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#136
post #93

Drug creation needs to be nationalized, 100% tax funded all the way from researcher to trials to manufacture, and the drugs sold at cost thereafter. And the pharmaceuticals industry needs to just go away.

What's the last thing you bought that was manufactured by government. If you think prices are high now, then go look at prices of non subsidized government manufactured products. I think you will change your mind.

I buy information from the government all of the time. It is cheap and very high quality -- authoritative, in fact.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn't comparable. Computers are tools. Drugs are health. They are a public good and a natural human right. Holding people's health hostage is unacceptable whether you do it with a knife in an alley, or a capitalist health system. Mixing them up like the USA system does is a category error.

They are directly comparable. New drugs don't materialize out of thin air any more than the iPhones or any other applications of basic internet protocols did. Imagine if in the early 90s we had stiffed cellular phone technology because "only the rich have access to it" or general internet/network technology because "only banks and giant corporations have access to it." Thanks to capitalism, the technology is now so p…

New drugs come from universities, and from people motivated by the combination of public-spiritedness and academic success.

Tax would pay their grants, tax would fund the trials, and tax would fund the production and packaging.

Do roads and public water sanitation materialize out of thin air?

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#138
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the overall result would be other companies start manufacturing the generic and sell the drug for maybe 20% less than Martin and over time the price drops back down towards where it once started. In the meantime, this company either goes bankrupt or is sold off. Or the government passes a law capping how much you can raise the price of a generic drug over so many years.

That's the loophole though, the quantities are so small that realistically, no pharmaceutical company has the incentive to make their version of the drug, even at $750 per dose. There are still costs to making a drug that's off-patent, and sometimes the number of patients being treated is only in the double digits. Additionally, a competing drug released at say, $500 per dose would still be considered predatory anywa…

They should just allow importing drugs from other markets that have good enough quality standards - like the EU or Canada I guess. Problem solved.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#139
post #106
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understood my comment. "Socialised healthcare" is a system where a public institution puts capital to take care of a patient by using private-made products and services. i.e. the needles, IT systems, ambulances, drugs, etc, the public system is a platform, but not an industry. Let the market be free, private companies are better at solving real problems. If the price of a drug is expensive (i) a pub…

Loads of things have been handed over from the government to companies within The Netherlands. Your general statement that governments are not good I highly doubt. Especially for basic services, governments seem to run them cheaper and more reliably.

Well, in the US, we have the Veterans Administration and Indian Health Service doing a poor job and wasting a lot of money and are unreliable.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#140
post #55

I am a fund manager and I have followed Martin Shkreli since his prior company, Retrophin, went public about two years ago. Simply put, Martin is a sociopathic criminal with a well-established, and consistent track record of deceit, recklessness, failure, and just plain old stupidity. But he is also hyper-aggressive. He is currently living in Switzerland, and it's my understanding that he fled the country in order to…

From an economic and policy perspective, unfortunately, Turing is doing everything right. Makena is probably not a great comparison as its used for prevent early birth, which is something of an edge case for certain pregnant women, versus Daraprim, which is a more common drug. It is the only FDA approved drug for Toxoplasmosis. According to wikipedia: Up to half of the world's population is infected with toxoplasmosis.[8] In the United States about 23% are affected[9] and in some areas of the world this is up to 95%

What no one seems to be discussing here, is why there is such a long approval process from the FDA for generics? Ideally, someone should be able to ramp up production of this quickly, but apparently it takes years just to get the FDA to test your generic, even if its detected in the lab as being 100% chemically identical to the now expired patented drug. Turing is using this lag time to its benefit, but why aren't we yelling at the FDA to move faster on this kind of thing? I guess this might be moot because Turing can simply drop prices to scare off the investors of this hypothetical generic competitor. Say its x amount to launch this and they need to sell at $25 a pill for 10 years to break even. Turing now drops its price to $24 a pill. They're going to have a lot more flexibility here than someone entering the market from scratch and as long as they're selling above the old generic rate, they will continue to make serious money.

Also, from perhaps a less practical POV, considering what the government spends on medicare (3% of our GDP), perhaps it should be building its own generic drug producing plants. Private industry has 20 long years to make profit on patented drugs, but after that it should go into a federal program. This avoid these situations entirely, cut costs, etc. Or regulate prices on generics, or heaven forbid, finally bite the bullet and migrate into a Euro-style socialized medicine/single payer system and be able to bargain with big pharma as one 800lbs gorilla as opposed to hundreds of 6lbs capuchins.

Expecting people seeking profit to "act nice" is asinine. We can insult Shkreli all day but it doesn't change the status quo. Even if he's an outlier, how long is your average white collar criminal case resolution, assuming he's even doing something illegal? 2, 3, 4, or even 5 years? That's a long time for a drug to be off market or be unaffordable to people who need it.

Right now a lot of people are looking at this business plan with envy. In fact, this kind of generic trickery is status quo - see the "reformulations" of generics and then stopping production of that generic. The system is broken if it allows this kind of thing. What we need is a system that's not broken and that can't be gamed this easily. The current regulation model guarantees companies like Turing doing exactly this.

Sadly, online discussions often degenerate into witch-hunts with the assumption that if we stop this one guy, then everything will be fine. I guess its much less emotionally satisfying to discuss systemic political or regulatory issues.

Post reply on HN