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

161–170 of 355 posts

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

#161

Post by Houshalter »

x5n1 wrote: post #151
refurb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's walk through this. Drug develop is mostly funded with private money. Yes, the NIH funds basic research that often support drug research, but private companies fund most of the bill. It's in the hundreds of billions each year. Now why would they do that? Well, they expect that they'll give a company $500M and it will turn into $2B or $3B. However, most of those companies will fail and the $500M will turn into $0…

Scientists are not profit motivated. Scientists don't work to produce more drugs faster just because the CEO is managing better. This is definitely something that can be funded by the public and should be funded completely by the public on a not-for-profit basis. Then we can no longer make these sort of ridiculous economic arguments.

Scientists may or may not be profit motivated. But you can sure afford a lot more scientists to work on a problem, and give them much nicer labs, and pay for expensive animal and human trials, insurance, etc.

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

#162

Post by necessity »

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…

The drug from the original company is expensive everywhere, what India has is generics, which in their turn might lower the price of the original drug because of the competition. It also lowers the incentive of selling the original drug there at all (and consequently allowing the government to press for agreements). I have some unpopular opinions regarding the subject...

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

#163

Post by roywiggins »

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…

It is expensive, but still cheaper than treating someone in the US with HepC for life, which Medicaid is already paying.

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

#164

Post by Houshalter »

gruez wrote: post #61
bpodgursky wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but that's not going to happen. If a big pharm company doesn't provide India-priced versions of drugs, the Indian government just declares the patent invalid and lets generics produce it for free (yes, this happens).

Sounds like a good decision by india

Yes but not a good decision for everyone else. Someone has to pay for the development of these drugs.

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

#165

Post by refurb »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #133
agentcoops wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Hepa…

Don't have insurance that would cover it

Gilead was doing that.[1] Hell, most drug companies give free drug for patients who are either uninsured or under-insured (their insurer won't pay for it).

[1]http://www.gilead.com/responsibility/us-patient-access

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

#166

Post by cheriot »

refurb wrote: post #143
cheriot wrote: post #114

Eminent domain is not just for land. In extreme cases like this where a profit motive is the only thing keeping us from curing huge numbers of people, the US government should write a single check, take the rights, and start handing out pills. As far as the company is concerned, that could even be a preferable outcome. Cash now and the marketing benefits to promote its other drugs. Edit: Just a reminder that eminent…

Let's walk through this. Drug develop is mostly funded with private money. Yes, the NIH funds basic research that often support drug research, but private companies fund most of the bill. It's in the hundreds of billions each year. Now why would they do that? Well, they expect that they'll give a company $500M and it will turn into $2B or $3B. However, most of those companies will fail and the $500M will turn into $0…

I agree, violently. Protecting the researching company's incentives is hugely important. Otherwise we're getting the current crop of drugs at the expense of future drugs.

Eminent domain requires "just compensation" that courts interpret as fair market value. Since the company that created the drug was recently acquired there's a really easy number to put on it.

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

#167

Post by refurb »

x5n1 wrote: post #151
refurb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's walk through this. Drug develop is mostly funded with private money. Yes, the NIH funds basic research that often support drug research, but private companies fund most of the bill. It's in the hundreds of billions each year. Now why would they do that? Well, they expect that they'll give a company $500M and it will turn into $2B or $3B. However, most of those companies will fail and the $500M will turn into $0…

Scientists are not profit motivated. Scientists don't work to produce more drugs faster just because the CEO is managing better. This is definitely something that can be funded by the public and should be funded completely by the public on a not-for-profit basis. Then we can no longer make these sort of ridiculous economic arguments.

Scientists are not profit motivated.

You haven't met the scientists I've met then.

When you're working at a start-up and have options for a few hundred basis point of equity, you can be dam sure they are profit motivated.

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

#168

Post by x5n1 »

gaius wrote: post #157
x5n1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists are not profit motivated. Scientists don't work to produce more drugs faster just because the CEO is managing better. This is definitely something that can be funded by the public and should be funded completely by the public on a not-for-profit basis. Then we can no longer make these sort of ridiculous economic arguments.

Do they hand out sainthoods with PhDs now? A scientist working in the commercial sector has the same motivations as anyone else.

Then why not make any scientist who discovers any very important drug or therapy into a billionaire. If they are motivated the same way corporations are, then that should super motivate them produce more drugs faster. In fact why don't universities work the same way?

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

#169

Post by x5n1 »

refurb wrote: post #167
x5n1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists are not profit motivated. Scientists don't work to produce more drugs faster just because the CEO is managing better. This is definitely something that can be funded by the public and should be funded completely by the public on a not-for-profit basis. Then we can no longer make these sort of ridiculous economic arguments.

Scientists are not profit motivated. You haven't met the scientists I've met then. When you're working at a start-up and have options for a few hundred basis point of equity, you can be dam sure they are profit motivated.

Which drugs are produced by startups? As far as I know most drugs are produced by massive incumbents. The cost and the regulation is too much to do anything else. And as far as I know those incumbents are not turning their researchers that research those drugs into millionaires or billionaires.

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

#170

Post by WalterBright »

Houshalter wrote: post #158
refurb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's walk through this. Drug develop is mostly funded with private money. Yes, the NIH funds basic research that often support drug research, but private companies fund most of the bill. It's in the hundreds of billions each year. Now why would they do that? Well, they expect that they'll give a company $500M and it will turn into $2B or $3B. However, most of those companies will fail and the $500M will turn into $0…

I think the government should put a value on every life (or quality adjusted life year, whatever), and offer to pay that much for any drug that saves lives. From that perspective, $84k per life saved doesn't sound that unreasonable, and creates a huge incentive to develop similar drugs in the future. But I don't think valuing every life at $84k would be sustainable. And why should the drug company itself get to deter…

> And why should the drug company itself get to determine the price, with no upper bound?

Because they took the financial risk to develop the drug.

Post reply on HN