Live data from Hacker News

EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

nytimes.com

31–40 of 172 posts

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

#31

Does the FDA have the authority to deny marketing approval for minor improvements? Mylan pushed generics off the market by making a better cap or something, the FDA should just say no, that improvement is nice but it isn't enough to give you exclusive marketing rights. If you want to incorporate it into your product, license it to your competitors for cheap.

>> Does the FDA have the authority to deny marketing approval for minor improvements? They certainly don't. Look at Nexium, it is something close to a blatant scam but the FDA approved it and between Medicare and Medicaid alone the federal government has rewarded the scammers (AstraZeneca) with billions of dollars never mind private insurance companies.

Nexium doesn't appear to be relevant to the question I am asking, as Omeprazole was not pulled from the market when it was released (it's maybe a similarly stupid situation).

The additional issue with auto-injectors is that knowing how to correctly use a particular one is important, so there is a legitimate reason to make sure that generics work the same way as the branded version. This means that if the branded version adds a patented safety feature, then there won't be generics for a while.

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

#32

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 pa…

>How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere?

Because there is no patent here. That is why.

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

#33
>Mylan was actively involved in pushing a 2013 federal law encouraging schools nationwide to stock EpiPens. And the company takes credit for legislation in at least 10 states that require the product in hotels, restaurants and other places, and additional school-related legislation in nearly every state. It is also helping push legislation pending in Congress that would require epinephrine auto-injectors on all commercial airline flights.

It would seem to me that a government-mandated market expansion would require a counter-balancing price regulation, but maybe my sense of reciprocity is misplaced.

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

#34

Does the FDA have the authority to deny marketing approval for minor improvements? Mylan pushed generics off the market by making a better cap or something, the FDA should just say no, that improvement is nice but it isn't enough to give you exclusive marketing rights. If you want to incorporate it into your product, license it to your competitors for cheap.

>> Does the FDA have the authority to deny marketing approval for minor improvements? They certainly don't. Look at Nexium, it is something close to a blatant scam but the FDA approved it and between Medicare and Medicaid alone the federal government has rewarded the scammers (AstraZeneca) with billions of dollars never mind private insurance companies.

It's not just Nexium, the majority of the best selling drugs in the U.S. are no more effective than placebos or generics.

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

#35

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 pa…

If no one is making a generic, or more to the point doctors are prescribing "EpiPen" rather than "epinephrine autoinjector" being out of patent won't help.

In the UK doctors had to switch to prescribing generics I think as far back as the 80s. Brands are now only prescribed, with a few exceptions, when it's something new enough to not have a generic yet. Before that lots of things were often prescribed by brand without good reason.

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

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 par…

They could perhaps deny the application on the basis that the claimed benefits of the safety feature don't exist.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/355

(5) evaluated on the basis of the information submitted to him as part of the application and any other information before him with respect to such drug, there is a lack of substantial evidence that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof; or (6) the application failed to contain the patent information prescribed by subsection

Maybe it's a stretch, but a marginally safer but much less accessible product actually doesn't improve the situation for the public.

I'm partly suggesting here that if the FDA doesn't have the authority, maybe they should.

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

#37

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 pa…

> How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent?

Because the 1970s technology isn't patented. And patents can't get "extended indefinitely." Even if you get a patent for an improvement to a previous patented design, the previous design receives no protection once the patent expires.

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

#38
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?

>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 insurance doesn't pay for McDonalds. To make the market for drugs competitive, step one is to get rid of health insurance. Or at least health insurance coverage for drugs.

I think the going price for an iPhone is $700. How much would an iPhone cost if you only had to pay 20% of the price?

Do the math, and now THAT's why drugs are so expensive.

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

#39
post #32

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 pa…

>How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Because there is no patent here. That is why.

Patents do play a role here, though not the largest role. Both Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz were sued when for patent infringement when they announced plans to introduce competitors to Epipen.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-26/mylan-pfi...

[2] http://www.law360.com/articles/181459/king-pharma-sues-sando...

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

#40
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

Forbes trots out an interesting figure: $2.6bn to win FDA approval for a new drug. That sounds like a lot!

It also sounds like a number pulled from a hat.

So I went looking.

It's from a Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development study published in 2014 [0]. Which is, incidentally, supported financially by the pharmaceutical industry [1]. Even the published pdf is pretty lacking on actual data [2]. Because it's a PR piece. This other study, from the Office of Health Economics, 2012, reported the cost as $1.5bn [3]. (OHE is funded by research grants and consultancy fees from - you guessed it - the British pharma industry). Did the cost magically increase by $1bn in the two years between the studies, or is there something fishy going on here?

One point in the Harvard study abstract was,

> The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents.

And that's true! But that exclusivity is an artifact of medicine-for-profit, instead of medicine-for-health.

It's interesting that all of their recommendations for lowering prices fail to take into account (at least in the abstract, as I don't have access to the full article) the single biggest difference between the only market where per capital spending is $850 and the 19 markets where per capita spending is, on average, $400: for profit healthcare and medicine.

Keep in mind that even after that astronomic cost for drug approval (the figure for which is iffy in providence), for-profit pharmaceutical companies still spend more on marketing than they do on research.

0. http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/pr_tufts_csdd_2014...

1. http://csdd.tufts.edu/about/corporate_sponsorship

2. http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_R...

3. https://www.ohe.org/news/overview-ohe-study-cost-drug-develo...

Post reply on HN