EpiPen Price Rise Sparks Concern for Allergy Sufferers

Post by skywhopper » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

usefulcat wrote: post #278

treebeard901 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible that both can be true. The price for medicine is cheaper because you have a single entity, the NHS, negotiating for a large group of people. On the the other hand, it is possible that we subsidize the development of new medicine to an extent. An epipen would otherwise exist regardless because it is a requirement for many people. More advanced medicine that requires a large capital investment for resear…

> The price for medicine is cheaper because you have a single entity, the NHS, negotiating for a large group of people. Wellpoint and its subsidiaries insure more than 70 million people, which is slightly more than the current population of the UK. https://www.thebalance.com/the-big-five-health-insurance-com...

Post by icebraining » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #253

icebraining wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, we have: - Seizing companies literally run by criminal organizations. - A single time during war when companies were nationalized, and which was then ruled "an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power". - A bailout of the shareholders and creditors of failed companies. The only relevant one seems to be the second, and the outcome in the courts doesn't sound promising.

You misread the WWII example which was considered completely ok. In different war: "In 1952, President Harry Truman seized 88 steel mills across the country, asserting that unyielding owners were determined to provoke an industry-wide strike that would cripple the Korean War effort. That forced nationalization did not last long, since the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 the action an unconstitutional abuse of presidential po…

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

dleslie wrote: post #282

clavalle wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has created a moat for the current pen through regulation, particularly the extensive testing needed to bring it to market as a medical device whom people's lives depend on it delivering the right dosage with a low failure rate. This creates something of a small granted monopoly. It makes sense for the government to step in when something goes wrong. There are lots of theoretical arguments for a freer…

Seems to me that less testing is necessary for an established product. Are there patents involved?

Post by jo6gwb » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #277

grandalf wrote: post #270

Someone might reasonably wonder why a federal task force is required to investigate "price gouging" for an item that contains under $10 of materials and is not mechanically complex. Why wouldn't an entrepreneur simply introduce a competing epi-pen design and bring it to market for $300 (for example) and undercut the price being charged by Mylan? We're told to hate the Martin Shkrelis of the world, and to resend the M…

For anyone as confused as I was, I'm presuming that, Michael Skakels=Martin Shkreli?

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

icantdrive55 wrote: post #258

infinite8s wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the cheaper and more effective solution would be to carry around a syringe and a small bottle of epinephrine.

That makes too much sence for the FDA, AMA lobby, big pharma, and very entity/persons that makes a killing off health care. As to the simplicity the EpiPen, I once used it, and under stress didn't do it right. When I was younger I was very interested in medicine. In college finished all pre-med courses. Interned at a Coroner's office, etc. Even spent some time in med school. Very familiar with giving a subdermal inje…