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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 461 posts

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

#401

Post by codexon »

bduerst wrote: post #400
codexon wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how pharma is not a free market in this case. The drug in question isn't even protected by a patent anymore. Other companies are free to create a generic version of it. Government regulation has nothing to do with this. The free market has everything to do with this. The price of a life saving drug is worth either all your money or however much the seller wants to charge for it, as decided by the free mar…

One of reasons Turing paid $55 million for Daraprim, rather than just produce the chemical compound pyrimethamine , is because it's an approved Medicare drug.

I'm not old enough to use medicare so I don't know the details.

But I am willing to bet that if someone started making a cheaper generic version of Daraprim, it would put on the approved list. The reason pyrimethamine isn't on the list is because no one wanted to make a generic version that hardly anyone uses for $1 per pill.

And even if it wasn't, the drug was being sold for $1 per pill just a few years ago. You can easily pay that without any insurance at all.

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

#402

Post by Retra »

rsync wrote: post #389
Retra wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you come back and sing that tune when you're old.

Presumably I will be in a state of dis-ease ... I will be sick in one or more ways. You're making my point for me.

Pretending someone who disagrees with you is arguing your point is... pretty dumb, to be frank. Or did you think I would just get unbearably confused by your cartoonish switcheroo?

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

#403

Post by ken47 »

codexon wrote: post #382
ken47 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the statement you are latching onto is where I said that it is never economically optimal to allow someone to die in exchange for higher profit, so allow me to clarify. In this case, it seems nearly impossible to make a concrete case that links this monopolistically-determined price increase to something that comes close to morally justifying the potential loss of human lives. And as we know, pharma is not…

I don't see how pharma is not a free market in this case. The drug in question isn't even protected by a patent anymore. Other companies are free to create a generic version of it. Government regulation has nothing to do with this. The free market has everything to do with this. The price of a life saving drug is worth either all your money or however much the seller wants to charge for it, as decided by the free mar…

This is a monopoly, which is, by definition, not subject to the price discovery mechanism of the free market.

If you mean that eventually, some sort of force will break up the monopoly and find the true free market price point at the intersection of supply and demand, that is cold comfort to those who may die before that state transition completes.

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

#404

Post by ken47 »

codexon wrote: post #401
bduerst wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of reasons Turing paid $55 million for Daraprim, rather than just produce the chemical compound pyrimethamine , is because it's an approved Medicare drug.

I'm not old enough to use medicare so I don't know the details. But I am willing to bet that if someone started making a cheaper generic version of Daraprim, it would put on the approved list. The reason pyrimethamine isn't on the list is because no one wanted to make a generic version that hardly anyone uses for $1 per pill. And even if it wasn't, the drug was being sold for $1 per pill just a few years ago. You can…

If you do some research into this particular medicine, you will see that there are clear, non-free market roadblocks to producing a generic version.

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

#405

Post by harryh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #385
rayiner wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares why they're doing it--the point is that their money-making endeavors have the effect of saving lives, while other companies spend tons of capital on things that do not have the effect of saving lives. And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people.

> And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organizati... http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ > The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people. The patent system does prevent people from getting at lower costs. I continue to have hope for countries that invalidate drug patents, and for further methods to…

Has either PATH or the Gates Foundation ever developed a drug? Honest question here, I just don't know?

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

#406

Post by kragen »

ci5er wrote: post #380
kragen wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it makes sense ethically to push the FDA not to approve a drug you think won't work. It also makes sense financially to bet that the FDA won't approve a drug that you think won't work. But it doesn't make sense ethically to do both, both directly because it creates a conflict of interest, and indirectly because that very conflict of interest undermines both the objectivity and the credibility of your recommendat…

You are arguing ... what, here? That people with some sort of knowledge of a product/company/industry's prospects shouldn't be allowed to buy/sell positions in that company? If I understand you (and I may not), and we were to come to the conclusion that "there ought to be a law", I have no idea how that would even be structured/written.

Yes, I think you are correct that you did not understand me. I'm sorry.

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

#407

Post by cowsandmilk »

anthony_d wrote: post #242
cowsandmilk wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 F…

I don't think your view of the situation is any less biased. The problem is that there is very little incentive to ever reject a drug. Shorting is the only case I can think of and even that assumes the drug in question is important enough to actually move share price. Remember the FDA is primarily concerned with a drug not harming people, the extent to which it's actually beneficial is of secondary interest at best:…

> Remember the FDA is primarily concerned with a drug not harming people, the extent to which it's actually beneficial is of secondary interest at best

Uh... no. Just from that page, it states the FDA ensures "that drugs and devices are safe and effective for their intended uses". If safety was the only concern:

1) Why does the FDA approve indications?

2) Why has there been prosecution (possibly violating the first amendment) for promotion of off-label uses?

3) Why does the FDA have a "breakthrough" designation that fast tracks approvals solely based on their effectiveness?

4) Why do Pharma companies frequently run new trials using different end points in an effort to get a drug approved when the original end points they used showed no effect? Why have there been cases when the FDA didn't approve a drug because they declared the end point used in the clinical trials was meaningless for the indication?

I think it is fairly clear that a shitload of time and resources at the FDA are spent deciding whether drugs are effective and if the data from the pharmaceutical company shows effectiveness.

Edit: I should also add the whole DESI review[1] in the 1960's shows your statement is complete nonsense. Drugs that the FDA previously approved for safety before 1962 were re-analyzed to classify their efficacy. So, the FDA reanalyzed thousands of drugs they had already determined were safe to look at whether they were effective.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Efficacy_Study_Implementa...

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

#408

Post by codexon »

ken47 wrote: post #404
codexon wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not old enough to use medicare so I don't know the details. But I am willing to bet that if someone started making a cheaper generic version of Daraprim, it would put on the approved list. The reason pyrimethamine isn't on the list is because no one wanted to make a generic version that hardly anyone uses for $1 per pill. And even if it wasn't, the drug was being sold for $1 per pill just a few years ago. You can…

If you do some research into this particular medicine, you will see that there are clear, non-free market roadblocks to producing a generic version.

I looked into it and I don't find any.

It is not patented, and no law forces you to only use the brand Daraprim. If someone created a generic replacement, it would be on the fast track to be approved like every other generic.

The synthesis method is even listed publicly.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/4993#section=Use-a...

The only roadblock to a generic version was because no one wanted to compete with $1/pill.

FDA information:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/docs/obdetail....

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/docs/patexclne...

There are no unexpired patents for this product in the Orange Book Database.

There is no unexpired exclusivity for this product.

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

#409

Post by ci5er »

kragen wrote: post #406
ci5er wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing ... what, here? That people with some sort of knowledge of a product/company/industry's prospects shouldn't be allowed to buy/sell positions in that company? If I understand you (and I may not), and we were to come to the conclusion that "there ought to be a law", I have no idea how that would even be structured/written.

Yes, I think you are correct that you did not understand me. I'm sorry.

Please don't apologize - I'm apparently the one with reading comprehension issues.

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

#410

Post by afr6262 »

bedhead wrote: 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…

Shkreli seems like a scumbag but how is that different from what Valeant, Mallinckrodt and others do. Buy another pharma company and jack up the price. http://www.wsj.com/articles/pharmaceutical-companies-buy-riv...

I'm honestly looking for an answer here. Maybe there is a good reason Valeant can and should be able to get away with it.

Post reply on HN