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

2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#11

Post by rtl49 »

ubersync wrote: post #8
rtl49 wrote: post #5

Without more information, I think the indignant tone and format of this article are unwarranted. Before we learn anything, we hear about the human toll: innocent babies will die, parents are distraught, and doctors are furious. But we're provided with no clear information on the reason for the price increase. "When Mallinckrodt acquired Questcor in 2014, Synacthen Depot was one of the products in the portfolio. It wa…

Yes, but the fact that Martin Shkreli wanted to buy the rights for this drug makes me think there is somewhere a list of potential drugs that can be exploited in this way, and multiple companies are bidding for them.

Well, I certainly wouldn't expect a business executive to invest in a drug he suspects will be unprofitable. That aside, if the drug is unprofitable, and society has established as a general principle that the private sector is the appropriate venue for drug manufacturing, then I don't understand the objection to a price increase in principle. Without more information, we just don't know that this is an instance of price gouging. I'm open to that possibility, but I suggest waiting for actual evidence before taking your pitchfork out of the shed.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#12

Post by danielahn »

blucoat wrote: post #9
danielahn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no patent on the drug.

This is what confuses me, so maybe someone with a better understanding of this market works can elaborate. How is it that the drug is not patented but the manufacturer has the exclusive right to sell it? It blows my mind that one company can overnight make such a huge change and there is no competitor to turn to.

I am several steps removed from the industry but to my knowledge -

There is still a regulatory approval process to be able to manufacture the drug - so the cost and time required to receive this approval, then to market the drug as a generic alternative to the existing drug to a market that often doesn't see itself as the ultimate payor (ie. the consumer thinks the insurance companies / government are paying) and may prefer known names, and the original manufacturer's ability to then lower the price of the drug all combine to push away competition on low volume drugs like this one.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#14

Post by dzeanah »

blucoat wrote: post #9
danielahn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no patent on the drug.

This is what confuses me, so maybe someone with a better understanding of this market works can elaborate. How is it that the drug is not patented but the manufacturer has the exclusive right to sell it? It blows my mind that one company can overnight make such a huge change and there is no competitor to turn to.

According to a CNBC interview last week the product is protected via trade secrets. People know what's in it, but not how to make it. And it's some weird stuff (I think pituitary glands from pigs or something equally weird are key components - not sure there's a lot of open-source knowledge on how to deal with that ingredient pipeline.)

The CEO's pitch was that they believe the drug is useful in more roles than it's currently used for, so they're taking the increased money to perform the studies required to allow the drug to be used to treat more diseases for which there is no alternative.

And right now this is a last-ditch drug - it's used once all other therapies have failed.

So they're trying to increase marketshare by doing expensive studies, which is why this drug is still produced and where the money is going.

At least according to the CEO, and my memory.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#15

Post by eropple »

whistlecrackers wrote: post #7
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3

I don't know much about pharmaceutical policy, but I have an idea. I would like to have it torn to shreds if it means we can have an idea of a more equitable process of creating medicine. What if, in a single payer model, a resesrching entity that creates a new treatment which is in turn approved by the government, automatically forfeits any rights to the drug, but is guaranteed royalties for 20 years or so? Manufact…

Yes. A free market is a solution. Naturally regulated markets satisfy customer demands at the lowest cost when compared to the results any other system.

And people die needlessly because they can't pay. Are we not better than that?

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#16

Post by themartorana »

rtl49 wrote: post #5

Without more information, I think the indignant tone and format of this article are unwarranted. Before we learn anything, we hear about the human toll: innocent babies will die, parents are distraught, and doctors are furious. But we're provided with no clear information on the reason for the price increase. "When Mallinckrodt acquired Questcor in 2014, Synacthen Depot was one of the products in the portfolio. It wa…

There exists a moral line, somewhere. In this case, parents of children with a rare, dangerous condition and the doctors that treat them find themselves on one side.

If the price increase had been negotiated, or given fair warning, or was tied to any documentation of the cost of production, it would be much more tolerable - or at least understandable.

Instead, this follows a recent trend of exploiting sick people for profit through mind-boggling price increases for critical medications after sometimes decades of very low prices. There is most certainly not a 2000% increase in the cost of production - if there were, there would likely be a lot more transparency.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#17

Post by imgabe »

jostmey wrote: post #13

Quote: "The drug is long off patent." So why not order the drug from China or India? Is the drug expensive to manufacture? Or is it that the Canadian government will only order the drug from select countries? I wish the article dug a little deeper.

There may be requirements to purchase the drug from manufacturers that comply with government regulated quality controls.

Not that someone who really needs the drug couldn't seek out an online source to get it cheaply from overseas, but doctors may not be able to legally prescribe it from those places.

I don't have any knowledge on the subject though, just speculating. At least in the US buying directly from overseas pharmacies seems to be more or less illegal.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#18

Post by cma »

rtl49 wrote: post #11
ubersync wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the fact that Martin Shkreli wanted to buy the rights for this drug makes me think there is somewhere a list of potential drugs that can be exploited in this way, and multiple companies are bidding for them.

Well, I certainly wouldn't expect a business executive to invest in a drug he suspects will be unprofitable. That aside, if the drug is unprofitable, and society has established as a general principle that the private sector is the appropriate venue for drug manufacturing, then I don't understand the objection to a price increase in principle. Without more information, we just don't know that this is an instance of p…

I'm going to repost a comment I made elsewhere that may shed some light:

Maybe we need a charity that builds a research war chest to threaten companies like this with redevelopment. It costs a lot to replicate a pill and go through the FDA hoops, and once a private company does, the price just gets competed down to the point where it doesn't cover sunk the redevelopment costs--so in some scenarios no one bothers.

Instead, a charity doesn't have to take profit into consideration and can just threaten: drop your price or we'll persue independent redevelopment. With only the credible threat of spending on independent redevelopment, they could devalue a lot of these orphan drugs, and then buy up the rights/trade secrets to them for open release.

Competing businesses can't do this, because they can't pose a credible threat, because following through wouldn't make business sense. A charity can have non-business aims.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#19

Post by mrep »

blucoat wrote: post #9
danielahn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no patent on the drug.

This is what confuses me, so maybe someone with a better understanding of this market works can elaborate. How is it that the drug is not patented but the manufacturer has the exclusive right to sell it? It blows my mind that one company can overnight make such a huge change and there is no competitor to turn to.

I'm not very familiar with the drug market myself, but game theory can theorize why they can do it. From what I have read, drugs cost a lot of money and a few years to get to market even when they are not patent protected. This means that when a competitor starts investing money in a competing product, the main company can simply reduce the price to a point where that investment is no longer profitable. Potential competitors know this and that’s why they wont enter the market.

Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'

#20

Post by Oletros »

whistlecrackers wrote: post #7
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3

I don't know much about pharmaceutical policy, but I have an idea. I would like to have it torn to shreds if it means we can have an idea of a more equitable process of creating medicine. What if, in a single payer model, a resesrching entity that creates a new treatment which is in turn approved by the government, automatically forfeits any rights to the drug, but is guaranteed royalties for 20 years or so? Manufact…

Yes. A free market is a solution. Naturally regulated markets satisfy customer demands at the lowest cost when compared to the results any other system.

> Naturally regulated markets satisfy customer demands at the lowest cost when compared to the results any other system

Do we have any study about that claim?

Post reply on HN