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

111–120 of 172 posts

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

#111

Post by criddell »

rayiner wrote: post #105
criddell wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very relevant. With the incentives in place now, the most profitable thing a drug company can do is alter an existing drug enough to extend patent protection for as long as possible. It's sleazy. Are you not bothered at all about the EpiPen situation? Martin Shkreli doesn't make you angry? A pharmacologist friend once told me that the best way for a drug company to get a customer for life is to make sure they do…

They can't "extend patent protection" for the drug. Only the improvement. The existing drug loses patent protection. And no, the Epipen thing doesn't bother me. It's narrow minded to think about issues one crisis at a time. The only question is: how do you create a system with the proper incentives? At the end of the day, Mylan runs a very capital intensive business and has a profit margin about half what Google or A…

> They can't "extend patent protection" for the drug

Yes they can. The Hatch-Waxman Act was written specifically for this. Also see:

http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=6435

You never said whether or not Martin Shkreli makes you angry. Should investors be encouraged to find undervalued drugs, buy the IP, then raise the price through the roof? That would be good for society?

Part of the reason the advertising business is so profitable is due to companies spending so much money on ads. We banned many kinds of cigarette ads because of public health concerns and I would argue that there are legitimate reasons to ban many types of drug ads as well.

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

#112

Post by tptacek »

fjejfjrjdjc wrote: post #107
witty_username wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Money is a representation of human effort. Nobody wants to work for free or invest for 0% gain. Is there a reason you think the price should be lower? (remember people working need money too)

If you had studied economics, you would know that profit and income are fundamentally different concepts. The existence of profit (rather than breaking even) implies a market failure.

I think you're confusing "profits" with "rents".

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

fjejfjrjdjc wrote: post #107
witty_username wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Money is a representation of human effort. Nobody wants to work for free or invest for 0% gain. Is there a reason you think the price should be lower? (remember people working need money too)

If you had studied economics, you would know that profit and income are fundamentally different concepts. The existence of profit (rather than breaking even) implies a market failure.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by throw2016 »

Lobbying, crooked NGOs, corruption, price gouging. There is something completely rotten in the US healthcare system.

If this were free markets and capitalism, wouldn't the response be a flood of alternatives at 1/100 or even 1/10 the price since the base ingredient costs pennies, and not this self serving and crafty effort to leech tax payer subsidies? This is organized corruption.

When you let people feed on others desperation you create demons. This is the biggest argument for socialized healthcare.

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

#115

Post by ericfrederich »

Love or hate the guy, but Martin Shkreli has a good point here on the EpiPen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU

Basically:

  That $600 is a value to save your life
    - much cheaper than an ambulance / hospital stay

  That insurance companies should cover 100% of it

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

#116

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #112
fjejfjrjdjc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had studied economics, you would know that profit and income are fundamentally different concepts. The existence of profit (rather than breaking even) implies a market failure.

I think you're confusing "profits" with "rents".

[deleted]

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

#117

Post by celticninja »

astockwell wrote: post #82
rayiner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transparent medical pricing is not possible so long as hospitals have an obligation to treat sick people whether or not they can pay. Hospitals heavily cross subsidize between insured, uninsured, and Medicare/Medicaid patients. As long as we put expectations on doctors and hospitals that compel them to do that, they cannot provide transparent pricing.

THIS. Many Americans don't seem to realize we already have a "socialized" medical system - everyone paying into everyone else's costs - it's just that it's brokered by private companies instead of the gov't. Which means that it's less transparent, less regulated, and subjected to a bigger rake [1] than if it was run by the gov't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(poker)

But if you call it socialised it's anti American.

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

#118

Post by phkahler »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #56
codegeek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I…

Adding to this, if you have insurance most of the hospitals will jack up the prices. One of my friend did not have the insurance card, so the hospital billed X$ and told him that if he later gives the insurance id they will charge them. He later called the hospital and gave the insurance details and he is charged (X+Y)$. Being the first time he got sick this year, he had to pay his entire deductible meaning he paid m…

IMHO providers should be required to charge the same price to all patients. That's not to say hospital X should pay the same as hospital Y, just that X needs to charge the same to all it's patients for a given service/procedure and Y needs to charge their own price for the same to all their patients. If you have insurance, then they need to be charged the same too. This would go a long way to promoting competition and price transparency.

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

#119

Post by SilasX »

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?

It's because people seem to believe insurance companies are an endless font of wealth. It's maybe a caricature, but a lot of stuff starts making sense if you assume it: e.g. how people are fine with burdens if they are nominally imposed on "insurers" rather individuals.

I remember there was the controversy in the '08 election about Gov. Palin charging rape victims for their rape kit, and several people refuted it by insisting that they actually billed their health insurer [1]

Forget for the moment whether the argument worked or not, or is valid or not; the fact that they thought it was responsive says volumes about the typical person's "bottomless vault" model of insurance.

[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/...

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

#120

Post by rayiner »

criddell wrote: post #111
rayiner wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't "extend patent protection" for the drug. Only the improvement. The existing drug loses patent protection. And no, the Epipen thing doesn't bother me. It's narrow minded to think about issues one crisis at a time. The only question is: how do you create a system with the proper incentives? At the end of the day, Mylan runs a very capital intensive business and has a profit margin about half what Google or A…

> They can't "extend patent protection" for the drug Yes they can. The Hatch-Waxman Act was written specifically for this. Also see: http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=6435 You never said whether or not Martin Shkreli makes you angry. Should investors be encouraged to find undervalued drugs, buy the IP, then raise the price through the roof? That would be good for society? Part of the reason the…

You're confusing different things. Hatch Waxman does not extend the patent term for orphan drugs. It allows the patent term at the time of FDA approval to be extended to account for unusual approval delays, but only up to the point there is 14 years left post-approval. That has nothing to do with extending the patent term for modifications to the drug, as you state above. As to orphan drugs, Hatch Waxman does not extend patent protection. It provides a period of FDA exclusivity by preventing the filing of a new ANDA application. That provision has nothing to do with Epipen.

As for Shkreli--he's an asshole, but it makes no sense to focus narrowly on isolated abuses. Does FDA exclusivity for orphan drugs make up a non-negligible percent of healthcare spending (I think the answer is no)? If not than its just rage-bait, not something that we should base policy judgments on.

The big problem here is that manufacturers of generics have almost zero ability to invest in even minimal R&D. So they won't take an out-of-patent drug and use it to treat a long-tail disease. The orphan drug program is limited to diseases affecting less than 200,000 Americans. In the decade before Hatch-Waxmen, only 10 such drugs came to market. Since then, 400 have. So is it reasonable to judge the whole program by the Shkreli example?

Post reply on HN