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

71–80 of 392 posts

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

#71

Post by RHSeeger »

mgarfias wrote: post #53
skohan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/m…

> It’s fast acting, and varies in how it reacts in the body.

I believe they offer R (short acting / 2-5h), N (medium), and L (long acting / 24h). The problem with the older insulins isn't so much that they're faster, it's that they're less "specific" (from my experience). A newer short acting insulin (Apidpra, etc) has a spike in the 15-30 minute range and the spike is steep and the tail (while up to 5 hours) is low. Whereas R peaks in the 30m-1h range and the peak is low and the tail is much higher. As such, you need to plan ahead much better for your eating. It's frustrating, but not horrible. The N and L have similar problems (L is the reverse, where you want a tail equal to the spike, but it isn't).

The newer insulins a just much more convenient and require a lot less planning of what you eat and when... and not as close an eye on your blood.

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

#72

Post by pitched »

gentleman11 wrote: post #56
ChefboyOG wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Growing wheat and grinding it out into flour isn’t something I’ve ever heard anyone take on as a hobby before. Having all that actually cost less (including time) than buying bread would be a huge achievement!

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

#73

Post by reddiky »

TheFreim wrote: post #33
sithlord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Would it be possible to get a limited amount of the fast acting stuff for unpredictable situations and then normally use the "cheap" stuff? I don't know how this works so I would like some info from someone who seems to know.

Possible, sure, but not ideal. The "fun" thing about T1 diabetes is that every meal becomes an unpredictable situation based on exercise, sleep, stress, etc etc.

Slightly exaggerated, but only slightly: Imagine you could only drink water 6 hours before you got thirsty, but if you drank too much you might pass out (at any point 2-6 hours from now) or if you drank too little you're doing major damage to your body.

Really the only way to manage with that kind of insulin is to live a very, very low carb lifestyle. Its doable, but it limits your variety and leaves you prone to other potential issues.

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

#74

Post by gruez »

burkaman wrote: post #66
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…

Yes it is working as intended, the argument is that those intentions are inhumane. Can you think of any medical treatments that were developed without the promise of 20 years of limitless profits? I can.

> Can you think of any medical treatments that were developed without the promise of 20 years of limitless profits? I can.

This sounds like it's responding to a strawman. Proponents of the patent system aren't claiming that zero innovation would happen without patents, just that it would be much less. In other words:

No patent system: only inventions from altruistic inventors

Patent system: inventions from altruistic inventors and profit-focused inventors.

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

#75

Post by lotsofpulp »

nceqs3 wrote: post #65
DerpyBaby123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is an incredibly stupid comment. Net price in Humalog has decreased since 2014 [0]. The PBMs jack up the list price so they can get their fat rebates. [0] = https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/eli-lilly-discloses-pricing-... .

Eli Lilly's profit margin is double digit, usually around 20%. Managed care organizations (insurance companies), which own the PBMs, have profit margins of ~5% or less.

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

#76

Post by reddiky »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #62
DerpyBaby123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it was developed in 1996, the patent protection would have expired by now. If the cost of production was "steady", then the question is why is a competitor not jumping in to make and sell something that would earn them a huge profit margin?

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/why_peop...

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

#77

Post by DerpyBaby123 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #62
DerpyBaby123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it was developed in 1996, the patent protection would have expired by now. If the cost of production was "steady", then the question is why is a competitor not jumping in to make and sell something that would earn them a huge profit margin?

Do you doubt it was developed in 1996? Do you have evidence that the cost of production has significantly risen?

Otherwise, you seem to be repeating the old economics joke:

"The young economist looks down and sees a $20 bill on the street and says, “Hey, look a twenty-dollar bill!”

    Without even looking, his older and wiser colleague replies, “Nonsense. If there had been a twenty-dollar lying on the street, someone would have already picked it up by now.”"

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

#78

Post by nceqs3 »

clarkrinker wrote: post #38

Every time this stuff comes up it feels like we focus on the politics and not the people with diabetes. If you or your kid or your friends have Type 1 and are struggling to make your insulin out of pockets please, please, please call the Eli Lily hotline and get the copay card. They've dropped the monthly cost for Humalog to $35. Don't ration. Work the system. https://www.humalog.com/savings-support

Every drug company gives away their drugs for free to people who can't afford it in the US. It's sad that not enough people take advantage of patient assistance programs.

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

#79

Post by a3n »

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.

> Call your congresscritter.

Sorry, but regular people don't make "campaign contributions" of any noticable size, so all we get back is a form letter acknowledgement based on whatever box you checked for subject.

Big Pharma, Big X and Big Y, on the other hand, "donate" enough "campaign contributions" that the campaigner can all but ensure (re) election based on recent name recognition to get the nomination, then counting on "their" voters being unable to vote for the opposite party even with the discovery of a live boy or a dead girl.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=live+boy+or+dead+girl&t=fpas&ia=we...

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

#80

Post by chiefalchemist »

mgarfias wrote: post #63
chiefalchemist wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Our food system is sure rigged to make us fat. But then, in my case, what was it that triggered the t2d? Was it the family genetics (both parents are t2d in their old age), the over abundance of sugar in the std American diet, the stress caused by abusive relationships (parents suck, plus ex wife made my life a living hell), or the adrenal tumor? I’ll never know and I’m stuck with it.

Two of three you have control over. Some might even agrue epigenetics says three of three.

Diet. Exercise. Etc. All known to change T2D.

Post reply on HN