Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

211–220 of 461 posts

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

#211
post #208
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you just go to a doctor or hospital and pay them a couple grand per pill and use that? Nobody has to know where you got it from...

Because then you don't have an audit trail to use in your study documentation.

I meant the manufacturer doesn't have to know (so they can't take revenge on the doctor/hospital). You can still have a hush-hush audit trail.

Why is the original drug required anyways? Can't you prove it's the same without it? The details are all there in the public patent.

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

#212

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 a public good and a natural human right.

No they aren't. Saying that is equivalent to saying that you would be justified in putting a gun to a chemist's head and forcing him to make a drug for you even if he didn't want to. But there's no reason to say that your "right" to a drug trumps his right to be free from threat of violence and denial of agency.

What you're talking about is more of an entitlement than a right.

Holding people's health hostage is unacceptable whether you do it with a knife in an alley, or a capitalist health system.

Why exactly should I feel like society owes me health care that I can't pay for? Especially when the model involves a scenario where my getting health-care possibly involves using violence, or threat of violence, to make somebody else provide that care? How is that ethical?

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree that many people are looking at this business plan with envy. CEO's of "real" pharma companies know this business model is possible, but no one bothers with it. I think this is partly out of ethical standards (yes, CEO's, even pharma CEO's, can possess this) and partly out of knowing the inevitable backlash makes it not worth it for the business and their personal reputation. Again, while KV isn't a…

Finding ways to make generics super-profitable is definitely common. Turing is, arguably, the ugliest of the bunch, but there's more than enough ugly to go around. Your mythical "honest and kindly pharma CEO who wants nothing but for everyone to have cheap drugs" doesn't exist. Its Shkreli's all the way down: http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/06/allow-big-pharma-rip-us/ Bill Moyers: For example, last February, before its…

"America is one of few advanced nations that allow direct advertising of prescription drugs."

For one, read "the only". New Zealand was the only hold out (due to a trade agreement), but even there it's now been illegal for several years.

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I don't understand why everybody's so afraid that without patents no medicine would be made anymore. On the contrary, it would force companies to work together and share the R&D, and would prevent the current inefficiency of multiple companies inventing the same wheel, doing the same studies, just because they all want to invent this medicine first. Even better: with all the money that would be saved from no…

That's a bit of a fantasy, isn't it? Pharma companies don't re-invent the same wheel: even in cases where they're pursuing similar avenues of research, the drugs being developed share sometimes significant differences (and in many cases, even insignificant differences can later be found to be more significant than first believed). Even if companies were somehow able to collaborate without any problem, the end result…

Every way of dealing with something has its flaws, the point is to fix them. The patent system is flawed in its foundation, i.e. claiming a discovery for yourself and keeping this technology away from the rest of humanity.

For the rest, I wouldn't know why there wouldn't be multiple medicines. Labs would still come up with multiple compounds that have more or less the same result, and if not, research would continue for the people who fall outside the bell curve of the other medicine.

The whole difference would be that instead of competition, there is cooperation, and the aim is not to make money or profit, but to help humanity. This is not unrealistic, it's basically what we (at least in NL) learn in primary school: "Two know more than one", "Many hands make light work", etc. It's only that the schools after that tell us to forget it all and teach us how we need to compete each other and especially to keep everything for ourselves and never do anything without expecting something in return.

[quote]where companies use controlled distribution (such as with Daraprim) to prevent generics from being tested, and thus, being brought to market. [/quote]

This wouldn't happen, as the resulting medicine IS the generic.

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pharma industry does need to be relatively strictly regulated - for instance see the issues over withholding and bias in clinical research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials But, nationalizing the industry is impossible. We don't spend anywhere near enough on medical research for it to be possible. The UK government for instance spends about £500m a year on all medical research, even if you redirected all t…

Why would you assume that in a situation where the entire pharmaceutical industry was nationalized there would not be any more revenue going to those programs? Presumably 1) a government who chose to nationalize them would also direct more tax dollars toward them 2) at least some of the revenue pharmaceutical companies are seeing now would go to government manufacturers instead. This is academic, perhaps, given the l…

Honestly I think single payer healthcare in the US gets you 95% of the way there. At that point the government is in control of most of the revenue to the pharmaceutical companies leaving them in a much better negotiating position. It even makes sense to then bring some of the pharmaceutical production "in house" to cut costs since you're de facto paying for all of the pharmaceutical research anyway.

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

#216

I'm a libertarian and completely in favor of private property and an open, informed marketplace. Having said that, this is out of control. If you know you're selling me a life-or-death product which has no peer, and the government protects your property such that others can't make it cheaper? It's not a market. It's rent-seeking, highway robbery. Bad actors are going to cause an overreaction that is going to seriousl…

and the government protects your property such that others can't make it cheaper?

The problem here isn't the market, corporations, or libertarianism. The problem is the government and its treatment of "imaginary property".

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm sure he'd be happy to let that go unprotested ... "Skrelicame to attention after his attempts to have the FDA not approve drugs being produced by companies whose stocks he was shorting". Who needs morality in the free market, right?

That is a very biased view of the situation.

Pharma companies try to put the best face on data to get a drug approved. Analysts try to approach the data in an impartial way. If an analyst looks at the data and sees issues, it makes sense both ethically and financially to push for the drug not to be approved. Ethically, if the drug doesn't work as advertised, it is better that it is not sold as a cure. Informing the FDA of your analysis is a duty. Financially, if you think the drug doesn't work, it makes sense to short the stock in the belief that it won't be approved.

Pharma companies always present it as hedge funds trying to kill their products, but if the data is strong and the drug works, the analyst could just go long on the company instead.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they need samples when the chemical structure is so widely known[1]? It's not like it's a biologic where sequence and other formulation details are critically important. Can you explain? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine Edit: I noticed that paulmd, further down, explained why this is important. I didn't realize the rules were this stupid. The FDA should be able to force companies to make thei…

Formulating the generics isn't the hard part (well, beyond the chemistry but that's straightforward enough - once you know something can be done, it's just a matter of time and effort). Once a generics company does that, they have to perform bioequivalence testing. It makes a lot of sense, because generics can have different inactive ingredients (fillers, etc.) that can still affect the patient. But in order to perfo…

So perhaps in these cases we should place the blame on certain shortcomings of the FTC's regulation rather than the companies who take advantage of the loopholes. I don't agree with the practices of this company, but if the loopholes exist, I'm not sure we have much reason to expect companies to behave any way but capitalistically.

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

#219
Not directly related to this case, but if anyone is interested in how drug companies lobby watch this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/

Basically Medicare, despite it's size, is NOT allowed by the US Government to bargain for favorable prices costing tax payers billions and billions.

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because innovation cannot exist outside a purely market driven system?

Improving things just to improve them and research just for curiosity's sake are foreign concepts to those running the markets.

To be fair, they are foreign concepts to a lot of people in general.
Post reply on HN