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

Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#21

Post by Retric »

programmarchy wrote: post #14
bmelton wrote: post #12

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narrative into the ground. Yes, he jacked the prices up, but only after getting it on a co-pay schedule, which means that like most drugs, you'll pay your insurance co-pay for it, but not the sticker price. For those without insurance, or who cannot afford it, they…

You're not considering the long term effects. The extra cost placed on the insurance company will get passed on to the consumer in the form of increased premiums. He's just using the fascist, anti-competitive, anti-consumer U.S. insurance economic model to his advantage. It's scum heaped upon scum.

A dirty secret of the insurance industry is they don't actually want to lower prices. They act like cost plus defense contractors and are happy to maximize any systemic costs that are spread around the industry.

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#22

Post by robotresearcher »

bmelton wrote: post #12

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narrative into the ground. Yes, he jacked the prices up, but only after getting it on a co-pay schedule, which means that like most drugs, you'll pay your insurance co-pay for it, but not the sticker price. For those without insurance, or who cannot afford it, they…

> the cost of the drug to the insured doesn't really go up by a whole lot.

Nonsense. The insured are paying the full inflated price of the drug. The cost is spread around the whole insured cohort, not just the subset that needs this drug.

It's a bare-faced cynical exploit of insurance. No one feels like they are paying more, but in fact huge numbers of people are paying a little bit more for no good reason.

Insurance companies don't care much, since they pass on the costs to customers. Diabolically clever and a terrible waste of money.

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#23

Post by WildUtah »

DrScump wrote: post #13
killface wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but with medical tourism becoming more reliable and trusted, as well as companies hq'd in countries unencumbered by our insistence on patents for biology, it's likely this is where another country takes the "top" spot from the US. China, Brazil, and India all seems like good potentials.

Medical tourism doesn't work for chronic disease requiring recurring visits/treatments... unless you move there.

unless you move there

It's a big opportunity for Mexico, then. Already home of the most cost effective first world (OECD) universal health care system, Mexico has good facilities right on the US border in half a dozen cities and is popular for eye and dental procedures for US visitors already.

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#24

Post by x5n1 »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #15
bmelton wrote: post #12

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narrative into the ground. Yes, he jacked the prices up, but only after getting it on a co-pay schedule, which means that like most drugs, you'll pay your insurance co-pay for it, but not the sticker price. For those without insurance, or who cannot afford it, they…

>Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions What light? Can you point to it?

All I see is the cold darkness of reality, Bob...

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#25

Post by x5n1 »

nonbel wrote: post #9

Worst case scenario: People will be getting screened earlier and earlier. They will be told they have a horrible disease but there is nothing they can do about it because it is too expensive. The mortality rates from the major killers like heart disease and cancer will drop. This will not be a good sign though. The mortality rates from suicide and poisoning from attempts at self medication will rise. The deaths will…

Viva la Mexico or Canada.

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#26

Post by bmelton »

FireBeyond wrote: post #16
bmelton wrote: post #12

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narrative into the ground. Yes, he jacked the prices up, but only after getting it on a co-pay schedule, which means that like most drugs, you'll pay your insurance co-pay for it, but not the sticker price. For those without insurance, or who cannot afford it, they…

Where do you think the balance beyond the co-pay is coming from, though? Magical wish-granting insurance fairies? Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but your argument, as stated by Shkreli himself, seems to think that people believe that the hundreds (or more) dollars a month they pay in insurance premiums has absolutely nothing to do with this. "But your copay will only be $20 and you won't pay a cent more!" No, you (or…

Sarcastic tone forgiven, because I was there once too, but it seems like it's mostly liberals and progressives who are upset by this, while conservatives and capitalists more willing to forgive it. That seems backwards to me, as the progressive argument is that costs should be spread throughout society, from the haves to the have nots, and that if this is already the shell game of insurance anyway, it seems silly that Daraprim wasn't already playing it.

Either way, the capitalists had the right of it -- if the price was too high, there's a $1 per pill alternative right now. Assuming that all else holds true, I just don't see the harm here any more than I see the harm in Motorola charging $800 for their top of the line cell phones while Wal-Mart has one for a small fraction of that.

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#27

Post by Scoundreller »

nonbel wrote: post #9

Worst case scenario: People will be getting screened earlier and earlier. They will be told they have a horrible disease but there is nothing they can do about it because it is too expensive. The mortality rates from the major killers like heart disease and cancer will drop. This will not be a good sign though. The mortality rates from suicide and poisoning from attempts at self medication will rise. The deaths will…

Best-case scenario: Alternate markets will pop up to supply the molecules. There are plenty of such markets out there, I doubt patent-ignorance is beyond them.

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#28

Post by bmelton »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #15
bmelton wrote: post #12

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narrative into the ground. Yes, he jacked the prices up, but only after getting it on a co-pay schedule, which means that like most drugs, you'll pay your insurance co-pay for it, but not the sticker price. For those without insurance, or who cannot afford it, they…

>Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions What light? Can you point to it?

Certainly. Here are my claims, and links to affirmations.

    *  He jacked the prices up
    I don't think I need a source for that one. 

    * After getting it on a co-pay schedule
    Can't find a handy, direct citation, but it's pretty 
    easy to find in other articles - it was shifted to certain 
    pharmacies and added to copay schedules. 

    * they're happy to give Daraprim away for free.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/daraprim-turing-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli/406546/

    CTRL+F "free to anyone"

    * Shkreli will be able to funnel Daraprim profits into research
    http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/turing-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli-response/

    CTRL+F for "research into this disease"

    * if left alone, would eventually slide from 70% effective to 60%, to 50%, etc.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11882281/American-hedge-funder-Martin-Shkreli-increases-price-of-Aids-related-drug-by-5000pc.html

    Toxoplasmosis evolves, and Daraprim is currently toxic.  Moreover, 
    the people that need Daraprim tend to only need it for a very short time, 
    like an anti-biotic.

    * These guys have released an alternative for $1 a pill
    Worth noting, I intended to provide a link in my other post, and in making
    this reply, realize that I failed to do so.  So, caveat: the $1 alternative is 
    being provided by a competitor.  Regardless, here's the source: 

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/23/imprimis-pharmaceuticals-turing-pharmaceuticals-daraprim/74452030/

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#29

Post by jsprogrammer »

bmelton wrote: post #28
jsprogrammer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions What light? Can you point to it?

Certainly. Here are my claims, and links to affirmations. * He jacked the prices up I don't think I need a source for that one. * After getting it on a co-pay schedule Can't find a handy, direct citation, but it's pretty easy to find in other articles - it was shifted to certain pharmacies and added to copay schedules. * they're happy to give Daraprim away for free. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/d…

You haven't shown any light here; only given a description of events so far.

>CTRL+F "free to anyone"

Complete the context for, " who can't afford it". Do you know where I can find Shkreli's rationing guidelines?

Re: Pharma's Bizarre Pricing Shrug

#30

Post by Rotten194 »

bmelton wrote: post #26
FireBeyond wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think the balance beyond the co-pay is coming from, though? Magical wish-granting insurance fairies? Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but your argument, as stated by Shkreli himself, seems to think that people believe that the hundreds (or more) dollars a month they pay in insurance premiums has absolutely nothing to do with this. "But your copay will only be $20 and you won't pay a cent more!" No, you (or…

Sarcastic tone forgiven, because I was there once too, but it seems like it's mostly liberals and progressives who are upset by this, while conservatives and capitalists more willing to forgive it. That seems backwards to me, as the progressive argument is that costs should be spread throughout society, from the haves to the have nots, and that if this is already the shell game of insurance anyway, it seems silly tha…

You see no difference between a life-saving medication and a smartphone? No difference? Not even a little bit?
Post reply on HN