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

EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 172 posts

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

#41

Post by maxerickson »

warfangle wrote: post #40
mtgx wrote: 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…

The studies of marketing spending are usually just as disingenuous, reporting the "Selling, general and administrative" line item from annual reports as the amount spent on marketing. But that line item includes things like salaries and office space and such, things that the company has to do to sell products which are not advertising.

Marketing spending is huge, but it undermines their message when they do that.

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

#42

Post by maxerickson »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #35
StefanKarpinski wrote: post #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 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 witho…

My experience in the US is that doctors prescribe drugs with generic alternatives anytime they can. I'm not sure if I've ever even taken a branded prescription pill.

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

#43

Post by gizmodo59 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #19

This whole drug company argument -- that the only thing that really matters is what end users pay as a co-pay or co-insurance and that no one should care what insurance companies (including governments) pay -- is so breathtakingly bad I can only imagine it is in bad faith. Where do they expect us to believe the institutional payments are coming from, out of thin air?

One of the things I do not understand is, the explanation given is that Obamacare fixes the donut hole where people who are not enrolled in company sponsored/medicare could get insurance.

This has just let the drug companies to raise the price without any backslash because the end user is "not" paying the price. However, the rising premiums and plans with high deductibles meant that the drugs are still not affordable even if you are covered by some insurance.

What is the solution to this? Single-payer health care?

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

#44

Post by chapium »

maxerickson wrote: post #42
anexprogrammer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 witho…

My experience in the US is that doctors prescribe drugs with generic alternatives anytime they can. I'm not sure if I've ever even taken a branded prescription pill.

Same experience here. Usually a name brand is mentioned as well, which I always chuckle at.

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

#45

Post by djschnei »

bradleyjg wrote: post #19

This whole drug company argument -- that the only thing that really matters is what end users pay as a co-pay or co-insurance and that no one should care what insurance companies (including governments) pay -- is so breathtakingly bad I can only imagine it is in bad faith. Where do they expect us to believe the institutional payments are coming from, out of thin air?

"But healthcare (including all the labor and money that goes into it) is my right!!1!"

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

#46

Post by importantbrian »

maxerickson wrote: post #42
anexprogrammer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 witho…

My experience in the US is that doctors prescribe drugs with generic alternatives anytime they can. I'm not sure if I've ever even taken a branded prescription pill.

Yeah, my old doctor would always prescribe generics, and if he knew you were hard up and might not even be able to afford the generics he would try to get samples from the reps anytime he could and just give them to you.

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

#49

Post by whatshisface »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #43
bradleyjg wrote: post #19

This whole drug company argument -- that the only thing that really matters is what end users pay as a co-pay or co-insurance and that no one should care what insurance companies (including governments) pay -- is so breathtakingly bad I can only imagine it is in bad faith. Where do they expect us to believe the institutional payments are coming from, out of thin air?

One of the things I do not understand is, the explanation given is that Obamacare fixes the donut hole where people who are not enrolled in company sponsored/medicare could get insurance. This has just let the drug companies to raise the price without any backslash because the end user is "not" paying the price. However, the rising premiums and plans with high deductibles meant that the drugs are still not affordable…

If only insurance companies had some sort of pressure to reduce costs and prices. Some sort of... market.. pressure...

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

#50

Post by codegeek »

bradleyjg wrote: post #19

This whole drug company argument -- that the only thing that really matters is what end users pay as a co-pay or co-insurance and that no one should care what insurance companies (including governments) pay -- is so breathtakingly bad I can only imagine it is in bad faith. Where do they expect us to believe the institutional payments are coming from, out of thin air?

This. Exactly This. I am sick of hearing "oh you just pay $20 co-pay". No we don't. The real cost is much more and these pharmas and insurance companies know it. I know because I paid it for a family of 4. It costs $1500/Month for a decent plan that does not have high "out of pocket" costs (Read capped at $5000). So you pay $1500 per month and in worst case scenario, you can still pay $5000 out of pocket for a year IF the insurance company does not deny a claim.

I usually don't make political comments but one thing that was disappointing with Obamacare was the fact that it did not address this root cause and instead touted that now anyone can get insurance. Sure, someone with pre-existing condition is now probably a little better off but overall, obamacare did not address the main issue: getting rid of middlemen (insurance companies) and let doctors/hospitals work on fair and transparent pricing. Isn't that what America is all about ? Free Market, eh.

If I may steal the legendary MLK's words, I have a dream. A dream where I can call any doctor/hospital and ask what will it exactly cost to get a simple X-Ray done without saying "Oh no, I ain't got no insurance". Just a dream.

Post reply on HN