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

How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

alternet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 355 posts

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#131

Post by pgodzin »

verroq wrote: post #124
pgodzin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Gilead is exploiting dying people desperate to save their lives and have enough money to do so, while letting the rest die. And then I'm sure they are lobbying the government to make sure it won't do anything about it. Meanwhile, Apple is selling luxury products that people can buy if they would like to. And those that can't, survive just fine without one.

If all the poor people got naturally selected out then there won't be poor people anymore.

Hope you're trolling, but speeding up the process for the most vulnerable in our society is extremely inhumane

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#132

Post by nickpsecurity »

tim333 wrote: post #125
nickpsecurity wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the rate of employers whose practices cause a large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? I can't remember ever seeing that headline in U.S. papers except referring to China and such. Must be rare here. I wonder what the rate of mass suicide is in general for "all 50 states of the United States" vs Chinese companies like Foxconn.

>large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? Didn't happen at Foxconn. They were all on separate days over a few years. Not sure where you got "mass suicide" from. It's not mentioned in the comment you refer to.

Wait, this was apparently misreported to me although it still says wonders about the situation. It was a threatened mass suicide that led to concessions. Over a dozen did jump to death. And the worst part of what I originally received.... curtailing the suicides by installing safety nets instead of better working conditions... did happen.

So, yes, that's unusually bad with not many in the U.S. that can compare. I'll be interested if you know any companies in the U.S. where over ten people have jumped off one roof with company installing safety nets.

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#133

Post by MichaelBurge »

agentcoops wrote: post #106
MichaelBurge wrote: post #64

A quick Google search shows that they paid $11 billion for the company that sells the drug(Sovaldi), and earned $1.3 billion off of it[1] in 2016. They make half of that in the US, and something like 10% of it in all places that aren't the US, Europe, or Japan. That's a 12% return in 2016, which isn't nearly as good as the comments in this thread would have you believe. It's an okay return, but it wouldn't really be…

Ignoring any other aspect of your comment, I would highly suggest you to do a bit more research on Hepatitis C before suggesting it only concerns "druggies" and those who "have sex with weirdos carrying diseases." In fact, a large portion of those currently impacted (and especially those who would now be in an acute condition where this drug would most likely be literally life-saving) contracted the disease through h…

That does seem like a public health concern. Normally you'd recover damages from a class action lawsuit or similar, but it sounds like it was common practice at the time so nobody was acting negligent. That's just a sad state of affairs.

Gilead - or maybe even Congress/local states in cooperation with Gilead - could get a lot of goodwill by offering the cure for free in a one-time deal to people who:

* Developed Hepatitis C before 1992.

* Had a blood transfusion that likely contributed to the illness

* Can't afford to pay for the cure otherwise. To start with, let's say that you make less than $60k/year to qualify.

* Don't have insurance that would cover it

It seems about as justifiable as when the government steps in to help after a natural disaster.

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#134

Post by pgodzin »

rayiner wrote: post #128
pgodzin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Gilead is exploiting dying people desperate to save their lives and have enough money to do so, while letting the rest die. And then I'm sure they are lobbying the government to make sure it won't do anything about it. Meanwhile, Apple is selling luxury products that people can buy if they would like to. And those that can't, survive just fine without one.

So the company that is saving some lives is more reprehensible than the one that is saving no lives? Companies that create life-saving things should be charities, while companies that create things everyone can "survive just fine without" should be richly rewarded. Right? That doesn't seem backwards to you? It's not like Sovaldi grows on trees, free for the picking, and Gilead came along and fenced-in the trees and n…

Yes, the company that actively prevents people from obtaining life-saving medicine for billions extra in profit is more reprehensible than the company that makes no pretenses about having anything to do with life and death.

Creating the cure was admirable, what it has done with it is reprehensible. It certainly has the right to make a significant profit. But a monopoly on medicine paid for by dying people with no other options does not accurately establish the value of curing the disease.

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#135

Post by rayiner »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #130
rayiner wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that a billion dollar profit would be a 3.8% return over the life of the drug (~10 years or whatever is left on the patent). You could literally get better returns with far less risk parking that money in Treasuries.

You're doing the math wrong. The suggestion is not a billion dollar profit on 26 billion dollars of costs. Most of the 26 billion dollars is profit. Chopping the cost tremendously would still leave a healthy profit margin. As to risk, they bought an already-proven drug. That's not the sort of thing that earns massive returns.

I did do that math wrong, but to be fair, the article is comparing apples and kumquats. $26 billion is how much Gilead has in cash, which has little to do with Sovaldi at this point. $1 billion profit (let's say that's annual, rather than over the life of the drug) on an $11 billion purchase would be less than 10% annual ROI. That's very low for what was still a very risky investment (unapproved drug).

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#136

Post by refurb »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #111
refurb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more interesting, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), which reviews the cost effectiveness of new technology, said the $95K price tag for Harvoni was cost effective .[1] However, they also said that current budgets mean it would only be affordable at half the price. [1] http://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/ca-panel-gilead-s-harvoni...

I bet if they committed to spending $x billion, they could get it at half price just by asking. Probably even quarter or 1/8 price too.

Interesting that you mention that. Shortly after Gilead launched Harvoni, Abbvie (Abbott's spun out drug unit), launched their HCV drug (Viekira Pak).

Abbvie decided to compete on price and immediately locked in a couple very large insurance companies. Basically, they offered a discount and the insurance company/PBM (Express Scripts) agreed to lock out the Gilead drugs.

This caused Gilead to have a bit of a fit, so they offered a competitive discount and locked in the remaining insurers.

If you look at Gilead's financial statements, you'll see that the average discount went from somewhere around 20% (including mandatory gov't discounts), down to 46%. That means the average price for Harvoni dropped from $75K down to $50K. Almost half of list price.[1]

Interestingly, the average price in the US is now lower than the high end of EU prices.

And people say there is no competition in patented drugs!

[1]http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015/02/04/what-the-shocking-...

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#137

Post by hyperliner »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #130
rayiner wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that a billion dollar profit would be a 3.8% return over the life of the drug (~10 years or whatever is left on the patent). You could literally get better returns with far less risk parking that money in Treasuries.

You're doing the math wrong. The suggestion is not a billion dollar profit on 26 billion dollars of costs. Most of the 26 billion dollars is profit. Chopping the cost tremendously would still leave a healthy profit margin. As to risk, they bought an already-proven drug. That's not the sort of thing that earns massive returns.

The suggestion from OP WAS in fact that a billion dollar of profits was "reasonable." Read above copy pasted quote.

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#138

Post by mhalle »

agentcoops wrote: post #106
MichaelBurge wrote: post #64

A quick Google search shows that they paid $11 billion for the company that sells the drug(Sovaldi), and earned $1.3 billion off of it[1] in 2016. They make half of that in the US, and something like 10% of it in all places that aren't the US, Europe, or Japan. That's a 12% return in 2016, which isn't nearly as good as the comments in this thread would have you believe. It's an okay return, but it wouldn't really be…

Ignoring any other aspect of your comment, I would highly suggest you to do a bit more research on Hepatitis C before suggesting it only concerns "druggies" and those who "have sex with weirdos carrying diseases." In fact, a large portion of those currently impacted (and especially those who would now be in an acute condition where this drug would most likely be literally life-saving) contracted the disease through h…

Absolutely. Possibly millions of people were exposed to HCV through the blood supply before 1992, and many still don't know they were infected. Since HCV may take 20-30 years to show symptoms, it is a potential public health time bomb. We luckily have a tool to defuse it.

For example, essentially every hemophiliac was infected with HCV due to dependence on clotting factor, many also with an HIV co-infection. 80% develop chronic liver disease.

Those populations aside, "youthful indiscretions" or even chronic addiction are not reasons for (potential) death sentences due to lack of effective treatment.

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#139

Post by rayiner »

pgodzin wrote: post #134
rayiner wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the company that is saving some lives is more reprehensible than the one that is saving no lives? Companies that create life-saving things should be charities, while companies that create things everyone can "survive just fine without" should be richly rewarded. Right? That doesn't seem backwards to you? It's not like Sovaldi grows on trees, free for the picking, and Gilead came along and fenced-in the trees and n…

Yes, the company that actively prevents people from obtaining life-saving medicine for billions extra in profit is more reprehensible than the company that makes no pretenses about having anything to do with life and death. Creating the cure was admirable, what it has done with it is reprehensible. It certainly has the right to make a significant profit. But a monopoly on medicine paid for by dying people with no oth…

> Yes, the company that actively prevents people from obtaining life-saving medicine for billions extra in profit is more reprehensible than the company that makes no pretenses about having anything to do with life and death.

So the moral impact of a company's actions depends not on the net good done by that company, but on the "pretenses" it does or does not put on? It's morally better to waste natural resources on frivolities like new iPhones every year, instead of saving some lives (but not all)?

And if it's morally reprehensible to not save a life when you have the power to do so, aren't all of Apple's customers morally reprehensible for buying iPhones? That money could literally save the life of someone in the world that lacks basic necessities.

Re: How I Got the $84k Hepatitis C Drug for $1500 by Buying It from India

#140

Post by mgiannopoulos »

corvallis wrote: post #122

Something to keep in mind is the population that typically has chronic Hep C requiring this drug. It's IV drug users who share needles. Think they have $84K? Nope. Think they have insurance? Nope. Guess who pays for it. Oh that's right, it's Medicaid! It's you, the taxpayers. Where is there a large concentration of people that have Hep C? Prisons. Guess who pays for it then? Still you! The prison systems are obligate…

So India does not have prisons or similar laws for treatment of prisoners?
Post reply on HN