Live data from Hacker News

EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

nytimes.com

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#21

Having multiple deadly allergies and needing to purchase EpiPens regularly, their price doesn't seem outrageous to me. I pay about $10 a pen, insurance pays about $100 per (even after the price increase). That being said, people rarely use this drug. $100 to save your life once a year or so kind of seems like a fair trade. This seems more like the media is outraged as opposed to the country. All my friends don't even…

If you have an extreme sensitivity you'd probably be happy to pay $5,000 a year to save your life.

The question is, why don't we operate our regulatory system in such a way that companies making a product that costs ~$30 only make a hefty profit, say 100%. The only answer is because we are stupid.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#22
post #8
post #2

Relevant post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/14/government-h... It's Forbes, but the argument is backed by the recent Harvard study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2545691

It is not made at all clear if the government is truly granting that monopoly (and if they are, did Mylan bribe the government for that privilege somehow?) or if the competing products were truly not deemed safe or effective enough. Anyone have expert knowledge in that area? The rest of the Forbes Articles seems like the usual delusional libertarian nonsense were they point out well known and obvious downsides of reg…

There's generic versions of a different auto-injector available, so the monopoly is very narrow, on prescriptions that say "Epipen". Patients can ask their doctor to prescribe Adrenaclick and then choose the generic.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#23

Having multiple deadly allergies and needing to purchase EpiPens regularly, their price doesn't seem outrageous to me. I pay about $10 a pen, insurance pays about $100 per (even after the price increase). That being said, people rarely use this drug. $100 to save your life once a year or so kind of seems like a fair trade. This seems more like the media is outraged as opposed to the country. All my friends don't even…

"I pay about $10 a pen, insurance pays about $100 per (even after the price increase)."

You don't have your facts straight and seem unaware of the more recent increases. The price for a set of 2 pens was:

$103.50 in 2009

$264.50 in July 2013

$461.00 in May 2015

$608.61 in May 2016

Source: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/epipen-price-rise-s...

You say you + your insurance pay $110 per pen, so $220 for a set, so you seem to be paying the price as of right before May 2015, and you haven't bought a pen since then. You might be in for a big surprise next time you have to buy one.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#24

Having multiple deadly allergies and needing to purchase EpiPens regularly, their price doesn't seem outrageous to me. I pay about $10 a pen, insurance pays about $100 per (even after the price increase). That being said, people rarely use this drug. $100 to save your life once a year or so kind of seems like a fair trade. This seems more like the media is outraged as opposed to the country. All my friends don't even…

If you have an extreme sensitivity you'd probably be happy to pay $5,000 a year to save your life. The question is, why don't we operate our regulatory system in such a way that companies making a product that costs ~$30 only make a hefty profit, say 100%. The only answer is because we are stupid.

You mean the only answer is because we are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#25

Having multiple deadly allergies and needing to purchase EpiPens regularly, their price doesn't seem outrageous to me. I pay about $10 a pen, insurance pays about $100 per (even after the price increase). That being said, people rarely use this drug. $100 to save your life once a year or so kind of seems like a fair trade. This seems more like the media is outraged as opposed to the country. All my friends don't even…

How much does your insurance plan cost you per year? If your employer pays it, ask them how much they have to pay. Part of the reason it is so expensive is because of monopolistic pricing on many drugs and treatments. You are paying way more than $100 Also you have to buy more than one because they expire.

It's entirely possible that their PBM has negotiated a price of $100 per pen.

Mylan is happy to give people $300 coupons to get them to use their insurance, it wouldn't be weird for them to agree to sell the pens to an insurer for $100.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#26
post #8
post #2

Relevant post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/14/government-h... It's Forbes, but the argument is backed by the recent Harvard study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2545691

It is not made at all clear if the government is truly granting that monopoly (and if they are, did Mylan bribe the government for that privilege somehow?) or if the competing products were truly not deemed safe or effective enough. Anyone have expert knowledge in that area? The rest of the Forbes Articles seems like the usual delusional libertarian nonsense were they point out well known and obvious downsides of reg…

A serious question -- what do you mean when you say that Bell Labs was a government mandated monopoly? As far as I was aware, it was a privately funded privately owned research laboratory. I'm genuinely curious, not disagreeing, though I am a little dubious.

The transistor, at least, was definitely patented, and just a cursory search [1] yields tons of patents involving transistors, so I don't think there was a restriction on patents.

And as a minor issue, the IC is generally credited either to TI or Fairchild, depending on what you consider to be a modern integrated circuit; Bell Labs had no significant involvement.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&hl=en&q=transistor+sch...

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#27
post #2

Relevant post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/14/government-h... It's Forbes, but the argument is backed by the recent Harvard study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2545691

From the article:

> Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, one of the architects of Obamacare, admits that a free—“uncontrolled”—market would bring down prices. Yet, his solution is more government control, specifically price controls.

> What does history teach us about price controls?

> The U.S.S.R., Cuba, Korea, Spain, and Venezuela amongst others have all used strict government price controls. The results were: shortages of everything, viz., long lines of Russians standing in the snow waiting for government-issued shoes or toilet paper; poor worker productivity; very low standards of living; and no innovation. This is precisely what we don’t want.

From the study:

> The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices.

That article is libertarian trash, and contradicts the study.

Deregulating food - and much worse - drugs, would just end up in dangerous cheap products, and slightly less dangerous but still low quality products. Every company optimizing for profit will take every shortcut available to them. Deregulating opens up a lot of them. Most of them detrimental to consumers, few of them detrimental enough to warrant a decrease in public image.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDA's genesis was bound pretty close to marketing. If you wanted to sell "Aunt Eliza's Magic Elixir" and claim that it "cures all ails: backaches, headaches, etc", you are required to show evidence that validates those claims. See Pure Food and Drug Act. FDA's responsibility is mutually exclusive with USPTO which would approve/deny patents based on "novelty".

I'm not suggesting that the FDA could deny a patent. I'm suggesting that the FDA could simply refuse to approve the new version of a product. In the case where there are generics and the improvement is small, it doesn't matter if the company decides to take their ball and go home. It might be a fine line to walk, but the improvements to the Epipen don't seem to be very substantial (it's kind of hard to figure out wha…

What would be the basis on which they would deny a new product? If you were Mylan, you would bring suit. Courts would not side with the FDA, because they'd be wrong.

The FDA's responsibility is dictated by legislation and there's nothing in the US Code that describes "you can't release new products if the new design isn't sufficiently improved."

Legislators have all the power. If they can agree, they can say "Woo party free EpiPens for everyone, put it in the budget." FDA has some small amount of judgment they can apply within reason to restrict products that fail to comply with the law.

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#29
post #2

Relevant post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/14/government-h... It's Forbes, but the argument is backed by the recent Harvard study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2545691

They look at the symptom, and might fix one case of high prices with public pressure, legal threats, etc - but if the system is broken, then what good is that? The question is not "why is this company so evil and greedy?" It's "why dont McDonald's hamburgers also cost $600?", and how do we make the market for drugs as competitive as for burgers?

Because it's a lot easier to prove that your hamburger doesn't harm people than a novel drug?

Re: EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

#30
How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent? Patents are supposed to allow recouping of R & D costs, not grant an effectively permanent monopoly that can be sold over and over again until someone greedy enough does the inevitable – if we grant that sort of long-lived monopoly, what else can we possibly expect to happen? Reform the broken patent system and this problem vanishes due to natural competition. This patent reform isn't even a hard one: stop allowing patents to get extended indefinitely (with or without minor modifications).
Post reply on HN