41–50 of 118 posts
There is really no word that adequately describes how disgusting it is.
(this article can be read by searching for the title on http://twitter.com/ , then opening the link in a private window) > Two doses of an injectable form of naloxone, Evzio, cost $4,500, up from $690 in 2014. The price of other forms of the drug, including the nasally administered Narcan, typically range from $70 to $150 per dose, officials say. The cost of naloxone [1] is an insignificant part of the cost of revivi…
If you totally discount the good manufacturing practices and traceability that pharmaceuticals have to follow, sure you can hack together a cheap substitute that might not work when the chips are down Except for biologics, many drugs are not that expensive to manufacture. The cost is in proving they will do what they say they do on the package.
So, yes, there always is some reason. The pharma company needs to cover the costs to their whole business with the revenues from their whole business, and they'll play whatever games help them do that. The price for a drug does not correspond to the cost to produce (or develop or get approval for) that particular drug, the price corresponds to maximum revenue for that drug.
With all the max revenue from all drugs, they need to cover research for a bunch of drugs that won't work out, marketing, board of directors, and other expensive hires to power the rotating door between regulation and industry, etc.
It would obviously be better if prices paid for long-existing well-known drugs did not mostly go to cover inept big-business shenanigans. "Real competition" would fix this, but the health care industry is fucked up in 10 different ways and we can't agree which direction to go to fix it. (In this case I'd say the problem is that the end-user is not paying for it, so bureaucracy and politics decide how much of which brand to buy, and the result is so bad the end-user would never pay for it, so we're stuck - it's unfixable.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the tracking, it's the super long and expensive regulatory process, and the cost of researching the drugs. Remember that for every successful drug, there are probably many that the company spent lots of money working on, and didn't end up working out. Someone has to pay for those failed ones as well.
How does that explain that the autoinjector was $690 in 2014 but $4500 today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore, I'd imagine the cost of the naloxone alone is a small percentage of the total cost of the emergency responders + acute care given in life-threatening overdose. The article doesn't discuss a recurring theme in medicine: acute care is really, really expensive. It'd be far more cost-effective to reduce the need for acute care by providing access to addiction treatment before things get to this point. Easier…
> It'd be far more cost-effective to reduce the need for acute care by providing access to addiction treatment before things get to this point. Easier said than done I suppose. Johann Hari has pointed out that it's very effective to just give heroin addicts pure heroin and a safe place to inject it. Switzerland has 'essentially' [edit] eliminated opiate deaths with this strategy: [edit: added 'essentially' in respons…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how long this country can survive with this rampant corruption and profiteering. When do we hit a breaking point, and what does that look like? I mean I read your response and think, "wow, that's horrible." Then realize absolutely nothing is going to be done about it.
I guess one way it could play out is that as the corruption becomes more and more obvious, together with increasing differences in political ideology between red and blue states, an appetite for seceding from the United States could develop in some states, and if that sentiment becomes common enough, it could become a reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore, I'd imagine the cost of the naloxone alone is a small percentage of the total cost of the emergency responders + acute care given in life-threatening overdose. The article doesn't discuss a recurring theme in medicine: acute care is really, really expensive. It'd be far more cost-effective to reduce the need for acute care by providing access to addiction treatment before things get to this point. Easier…
> It'd be far more cost-effective to reduce the need for acute care by providing access to addiction treatment before things get to this point. Easier said than done I suppose. Johann Hari has pointed out that it's very effective to just give heroin addicts pure heroin and a safe place to inject it. Switzerland has 'essentially' [edit] eliminated opiate deaths with this strategy: [edit: added 'essentially' in respons…
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/crosstown-clinic-heroin-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore, I'd imagine the cost of the naloxone alone is a small percentage of the total cost of the emergency responders + acute care given in life-threatening overdose. The article doesn't discuss a recurring theme in medicine: acute care is really, really expensive. It'd be far more cost-effective to reduce the need for acute care by providing access to addiction treatment before things get to this point. Easier…
> It'd be far more cost-effective to reduce the need for acute care by providing access to addiction treatment before things get to this point. Easier said than done I suppose. Johann Hari has pointed out that it's very effective to just give heroin addicts pure heroin and a safe place to inject it. Switzerland has 'essentially' [edit] eliminated opiate deaths with this strategy: [edit: added 'essentially' in respons…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how long this country can survive with this rampant corruption and profiteering. When do we hit a breaking point, and what does that look like? I mean I read your response and think, "wow, that's horrible." Then realize absolutely nothing is going to be done about it.
I guess one way it could play out is that as the corruption becomes more and more obvious, together with increasing differences in political ideology between red and blue states, an appetite for seceding from the United States could develop in some states, and if that sentiment becomes common enough, it could become a reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess one way it could play out is that as the corruption becomes more and more obvious, together with increasing differences in political ideology between red and blue states, an appetite for seceding from the United States could develop in some states, and if that sentiment becomes common enough, it could become a reality?
It's IMO more likely than most people think. I really hope we don't see a civil war in our lifetime, but historically democracy's are highly unstable. This time it might be different, but then again it might not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you totally discount the good manufacturing practices and traceability that pharmaceuticals have to follow, sure you can hack together a cheap substitute that might not work when the chips are down Except for biologics, many drugs are not that expensive to manufacture. The cost is in proving they will do what they say they do on the package.
Do you really believe that it costs upwards of 4000 dollars to track a little box with medication in it? For that money I hope each box comes with a solar rechargeable smartphone that sends a gps beacon every half hour.
With modern technology, trace ability and all that is really not that expensive for commodities. Returning to the topic, it would be predictable if OPs re-invention of the concept of generic drugs were maybe 1/10th the price of name brand. Oddly enough that's not unusual for generic pharma to be shockingly cheaper than name brand. The real question is why aren't generic overdose drugs incredibly cheap? I would guess profiteering, but who knows. Maybe they're not shelf stable, perhaps extremely temp or UV sensitive?