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

121–130 of 172 posts

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

#121

Post by SilasX »

FireBeyond wrote: post #90
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that companies often spend more on marketing than R&D is irrelevant. The fact is that they spend billions on R&D. They have to recoup that. Presumably they don't spend money on marketing for shits and giggles--they spend how much they need to maximize revenue.

Ask yourself, why is the United States the only country in the world where advertising prescription medicine to consumers is allowed? Why is it even needed? I know some people say "education", but that's backward. You have a problem. You go to your physician. He works out a treatment plan for you. For drugs advertised for specific conditions? To enlighten you to alternatives? You can oftentimes assume that alternativ…

>Why is it even needed?

Because, contrary to popular belief, doctors aren't gods, and have about the same fraction of slackers as any other occupation. Unless we're ready to have a really aggressive program for revoking licenses of doctors who don't keep up with modern advances, they can and do miss available treatments.

"Hm, I could eagerly search all the latest treatments that might be relevant to my patents, or I could write them up something based on gut feel and what I learned in med school 30 years ago. Both pay the same."

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

#122

Post by harryh »

FireBeyond wrote: post #90
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that companies often spend more on marketing than R&D is irrelevant. The fact is that they spend billions on R&D. They have to recoup that. Presumably they don't spend money on marketing for shits and giggles--they spend how much they need to maximize revenue.

Ask yourself, why is the United States the only country in the world where advertising prescription medicine to consumers is allowed? Why is it even needed? I know some people say "education", but that's backward. You have a problem. You go to your physician. He works out a treatment plan for you. For drugs advertised for specific conditions? To enlighten you to alternatives? You can oftentimes assume that alternativ…

why is the United States the only country in the world where advertising prescription medicine to consumers is allowed?

Because the US has the strongest freedom of speech protections in the world.

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

#123

Post by tn13 »

jackmott wrote: post #15
tn13 wrote: post #12

And what does NYT expect him do to ? Open a charity, raise a kickstarter to provide free EpiPens ? I hope he makes a fortune and inspires more to come up with those kind of drugs.

Her. We expect her to be out of a job when healthcare becomes socialized, then she can move into the financial sector and rip people off there.

And if the healthcare becomes socialized who will make EpiPens ?

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

#124

Post by aianus »

FireBeyond wrote: post #94
amluto wrote: post #59

One thing that really annoys me is the fact that drug makers can refund the co-pay to customers. In the auto repair industry, I believe this has a name: insurance fraud.

That's a very specific thing. The co-pay is a part of the price of the product that your insurer doesn't cover, so technically it's not theirs to begin with. Which is also why it's not a refund of the deductible paid, because that -is- considered part of the insurance contribution, i.e: (deductible paid by customer + insurance payment) = your insurance contribution co-pay = your personal contribution to the cost of t…

It's obviously fraud. If your windshield breaks and your deductible (co-pay) is $500, I can't quote you $500 above market rate to fix it and give it back to you in cash to stick it to your insurance company.

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

#125

Post by aianus »

fjejfjrjdjc wrote: post #66

I've been waiting to see a neurologist for a serious and worsening vision problem since May. For those keeping track, that's four and a half months. So between these high drug prices and low healthcare availability, why exactly are we so afraid of single payer again?

I live somewhere with single-payer (Ontario, Canada) and while it definitely increases access for the poor or unemployed, the wait times and service quality are far worse than they are for employed persons with insurance in the United States.

I assure you, we still wait 3+ months to see a specialist.

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

#126

Post by 0xfeba »

dota_fanatic wrote: post #99
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.

The work done by David Belk MD shows that these costs are an extremely small cost of hospitals, and that you're basically promoting a myth. [1][2] He directly addresses the inaccuracy of that claim in the following 10 minute video, "The $55,000 Appendectomy: What Everyone Should Know About Hospital Bills". [3] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4lgnif/i_am_david_bel... [2] http://truecostofhealthcare.net/conc…

Hey! My appendectomy was around $50k. I didn't have insurance, and it ended up being cheaper since I just ignored all the medical bills.

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

#127

Post by harryh »

mindslight wrote: post #103
rayiner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we going to allow doctors and hospitals to turn away anyone who can't pay the advertised rates? Like we allow every other business to do? And will we require Medicare and Medicaid to pay those advertised rates, without the discounts they currently get? Jose are the things that force cross-subsidization.

Those hospitals' standard rates should be paid by direct reimbursement from the government at their set rate. In the event they're out of line with the expected market (no idea what that distribution looks like, but obviously there would be one), then the hospital would be investigated for price gouging all their customers (as customers of this industry are less able to shop around). The problem we have here is the e…

I wonder if it might be possible to start some kind of group buying organization to negotiate insurance like rates without the actual insurance.

I would seriously consider going without insurance except for the highest cost goods & services (say over 100k) except for the fact that it will cost me more to go to the doctor for a check then my insurance company currently pays.

The group discount without the risk sharing would be a very interesting product for me. I wonder how many other people would be interested in such a thing.

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

#128

Post by Declanomous »

dota_fanatic wrote: post #99
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.

The work done by David Belk MD shows that these costs are an extremely small cost of hospitals, and that you're basically promoting a myth. [1][2] He directly addresses the inaccuracy of that claim in the following 10 minute video, "The $55,000 Appendectomy: What Everyone Should Know About Hospital Bills". [3] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4lgnif/i_am_david_bel... [2] http://truecostofhealthcare.net/conc…

I'll have to check that out. My primary care physician is located at a teaching hospital that is surrounded by extreme poverty. A few years ago he said that I was one of the few patients that have insurance, and one of the few that comes in for preventative treatment (no surprise, given the lack of insurance). This isn't emergency treatment though, this is normal doctors stuff, the hospital he works for makes a point of treating everyone.

Even so, my last visit was less than $100, including blood work. There wasn't even an in-network discount or anything. So I doubt I'm subsidizing anyone, and I don't think the hospital is suffering too much from treating everyone.

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

#129

Post by Declanomous »

aianus wrote: post #124
FireBeyond wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very specific thing. The co-pay is a part of the price of the product that your insurer doesn't cover, so technically it's not theirs to begin with. Which is also why it's not a refund of the deductible paid, because that -is- considered part of the insurance contribution, i.e: (deductible paid by customer + insurance payment) = your insurance contribution co-pay = your personal contribution to the cost of t…

It's obviously fraud. If your windshield breaks and your deductible (co-pay) is $500, I can't quote you $500 above market rate to fix it and give it back to you in cash to stick it to your insurance company.

Somehow there is a mechanic shop near me with a sign out front advertising that they will pay your deductible. It's not exactly hidden either -- it's located on one of the busiest streets in Chicago.

Here's a street view image: https://goo.gl/maps/hUAUUEJwiQT2

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

#130

Post by jandrese »

whatshisface wrote: post #49
gizmodo59 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They do in a way. By denying claims they can reduce demand for a specific drug or procedure and send a signal to the company that the price is too high.

The slight complication is that people will die without their meds, but the market doesn't care about that. It's only concerned with money.

Post reply on HN