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

Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

freethink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 392 posts

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#51

Post by chiefalchemist »

skohan wrote: post #41
dv_dt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The production cost of insulin is incredibly low. The pricing on it in the United States is systematic criminal manslaughter.

What's the actual situation there? I have read that cheap insulin for example is available at WallMart, but for some reason the price of insulin seems to be a huge issue.

The situation is that Type 2 Diabetes has raised the demand for insulin. More demand raises prices.

The thing we can't talk about without risking cancellation is that nearly all Type 2 Diabetes is preventable. In other words, the choices of the many have a significant negative impact on those (i.e., Type 1'ers) who don't really have a choice.

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#52

Post by DerpyBaby123 »

gruez wrote: post #26
burkaman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not branding, the newer insulin is significantly different and better for almost every patient. https://diabetesstrong.com/walmart-insulin/ It's likely not what your doctor prescribed, it doesn't last as long, it requires you (or your young children) to eat on a very specific schedule, it can't be used with an insulin pen or insulin pump, it's just all around a worse and less effective treatment.

Seems like everything is working as intended? A corporation invests money to develop a better product, and the government gives them a 20 year monopoly on it so they charge a premium and recoup their investment. As a patient if you want to pay the premium for it, you can get the better product, otherwise you can still stick with whatever walmart's selling. It's worse, but it's not any worse than what you'd had if the…

That's not what is happening. It has nothing to do with a patent monopoly or recouping any investment:

FTA: >In 1996, a vial of Humalog produced by Eli Lilly cost $21. Today, it's priced at $324 despite the cost of production remaining steady.

>Rising costs are nothing new. Insulin prices tripled from 2002 to 2013, and doubled between 2012 and 2016. To put this into perspective, in 1996 a vial of Humalog produced by Eli Lilly cost $21. Today, it's priced at $324 despite the cost of production remaining steady.

If everything is working as intended, it begs the question, what institution intended for patients to die from rationing insulin[0], and why is the USA ok with that institution's intention?

[0]https://www.ontrackdiabetes.com/live-well/diabetes-managemen...

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#53

Post by mgarfias »

skohan wrote: post #41
dv_dt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The production cost of insulin is incredibly low. The pricing on it in the United States is systematic criminal manslaughter.

What's the actual situation there? I have read that cheap insulin for example is available at WallMart, but for some reason the price of insulin seems to be a huge issue.

There’s different kinds. IIRC the cheap stuff and Walmart is just that, cheap. It’s fast acting, and varies in how it reacts in the body.

Our real issue here is that there is absolutely no incentives to control costs.

You’d think our ins companies would do it, but I’m practice, they end up negotiating sweet deals with the drug manufacturers. say med X @ $1000/mo msrp, but the ins companies negotiate it down to $400/mo. The drug company makes out like a bandit, and the ins people get kick backs for buying from the drug co, and passes on the costs to the insurance buyers.

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#54

Post by lotsofpulp »

OriginalNebula wrote: post #50
gruez wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like everything is working as intended? A corporation invests money to develop a better product, and the government gives them a 20 year monopoly on it so they charge a premium and recoup their investment. As a patient if you want to pay the premium for it, you can get the better product, otherwise you can still stick with whatever walmart's selling. It's worse, but it's not any worse than what you'd had if the…

Do you think a gross profit margin of 93% is fair?

Define fair and unfair. If it was so "unfairly" lucrative, I would have to ask why everyone does not invest in pharma? Why are tech companies where much of the VC funds land?

Perhaps it is because there a huge amount of risk involved?

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#55

Post by armatav »

birdyrooster wrote: post #37
HarryHirsch wrote: post #9

Insulin is a solved problem, in first-world countries the sale price is fixed and there's public healthcare. But in America you are supposed to take "personal responsibility" for your own health and biohack your way ouf of type 1 diabetes?! Srsly? This s a political, not a scientific problem. Call your congresscritter.

Found your problem: "African American adults are 60 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to be diagnosed with diabetes by a physician." Given that the middle class is very white and employed with insurance coverage, it virtually doesn't affect white people. Our politics takes black people's votes for granted and don't do anything for them.

The insulin price is that high through political/regulatory capture. It costs barely anything to make.

Not every problem has it’s root in division.

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#56

Post by gentleman11 »

ChefboyOG wrote: post #44
gentleman11 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife bakes bread almost every day and grows her own yeast. She loves it and the bread is fantastic. What is so ridiculous?

There's nothing ridiculous about the fact that your wife enjoys baking bread. There's a lot that's ridiculous about bread being so expensive that recreating the entire supply chain in your backyard is the only economically viable option for obtaining it. The metaphor pretty clearly was not about critiquing baking as a hobby.

It’s clearly about mocking decentralized home made solutions to problems, and of the people who opt for that approach. It’s an insult to every Amish person on earth and to home mechanics who shy away from garages. It’s also, by far, the most downvoted thing I’ve ever posted so thanks for using your other accounts to hit me for my acidic and savagely inappropriate comment

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#57

Post by throwaway0a5e »

birdyrooster wrote: post #37
HarryHirsch wrote: post #9

Insulin is a solved problem, in first-world countries the sale price is fixed and there's public healthcare. But in America you are supposed to take "personal responsibility" for your own health and biohack your way ouf of type 1 diabetes?! Srsly? This s a political, not a scientific problem. Call your congresscritter.

Found your problem: "African American adults are 60 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to be diagnosed with diabetes by a physician." Given that the middle class is very white and employed with insurance coverage, it virtually doesn't affect white people. Our politics takes black people's votes for granted and don't do anything for them.

>Our politics takes black people's votes for granted and don't do anything for them.

It's worse than that. If they sufficiently pandered to them to the point of actually solving their problems then they wouldn't be able to take those votes for granted, so they'll never solve their problems.

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#58

Post by nceqs3 »

sithlord wrote: post #27
sparrish wrote: post #8

This is bogus. Wal-mart sells insulin for $24.88 a vial without prescription currently. It's only the newer 'guchi' insulin brands that are crazy expensive. Stuff from 1996 that is compared to in this article is actually cheaper than it was in 1996 (adjusted for inflation).

This is so incredibly wrong - and trying to claim something you know obviously nothing about is hilarious. The different between NPH (regular insulin) (maybe R too, not sure??) sold by walmart and Fast Acting insulins (Novolog, Humalog, Apidra) is massive. Fast acting insulins start working at about in about 30 minutes and "peak" at like 2 hours, and may slowly have some effects for another 1-2 hours. NPH on the othe…

The net price on Humalog has gone down since 2014. The PBMs are the ones who distort list prices.

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#59

Post by chiefalchemist »

api wrote: post #46
HarryHirsch wrote: post #9

Insulin is a solved problem, in first-world countries the sale price is fixed and there's public healthcare. But in America you are supposed to take "personal responsibility" for your own health and biohack your way ouf of type 1 diabetes?! Srsly? This s a political, not a scientific problem. Call your congresscritter.

The US health care system combines everything bad about government-run health care (slow progress due to heavy regulation, layers of bureaucracy, government-enforced drug monopolies) with everything bad about free-enterprise health care (inequality, market price fixing, uneven quality, lots of quackery at the edges of regulation). We need to pick something. If we're going the free enterprise way we need competition,…

What we need is a focus on prevention. A significant amount of the system is devoted to preventable conditions. Lower the demand and prices will naturally come down across the board as resouces get redistributed, etc.

But as it is, insulin is high demand and increasing. Prices simply don't fall when demand increases.

Re: Biohackers take aim at big pharma’s stranglehold on insulin

#60

Post by throwaway0a5e »

armatav wrote: post #55
birdyrooster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found your problem: "African American adults are 60 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to be diagnosed with diabetes by a physician." Given that the middle class is very white and employed with insurance coverage, it virtually doesn't affect white people. Our politics takes black people's votes for granted and don't do anything for them.

The insulin price is that high through political/regulatory capture. It costs barely anything to make. Not every problem has it’s root in division.

You're not wrong but the fact that the problem is allowed to persist certainly something to do with "people with enough spare f*ks to give to be politically active" being mostly unaffected by the problem.

IMO it's more helpful to look at this through an economic lenses than a race one. T2 diabetes is very much a poor person's disease.

Post reply on HN