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

351–360 of 392 posts

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

#351

Post by YHK »

LinuxBender wrote: post #346
YHK wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The four thieves vinegar is doing something like that ( https://fourthievesvinegar.org/ ) They work also on patented molecules and try to reverse engineer proces, and then publish it. (which makes it illegal, so they are anonymous) I don't know how many molecules they published though.

Ah yes I think I've seen that site posted here before. Last I checked they didn't have a big database, but maybe I didn't dig deep enough into the site. The Download the Apothecary MicroLab Plans go to a status page that says to check back later.

Yeah I saw that. It is a bummer, I want to take a look at it now. I will try to ask around to see what is happening there.

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

#352

Post by chaps »

YHK wrote: post #343
chaps wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of projects like yours with the purest of goals never get past this stage because, simply, nobody makes the first move. It's almost like the attention gets in the way of publication. Either that, or there was never anything there, and it was just good PR from the beginning. Your project is too damn important to let this happen. Please find or do whatever you have to do in order to publish what needs t…

I forgot to mention it, but there is also FDA requirement to how we disclose the protocol. Usually it is patented process, so we are looking to see how we should do it to not create issue for the FDA validation. Other volunteer are working on this side, not me. I am a simple biochemist, those things are two complicated for me.

Understood -- keep doing what you do best :). Good luck to you and your cohorts, friend.

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

#353

Post by coliveira »

pm90 wrote: post #293
coliveira wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I mean is that traditional avenues for change have been closed by the pharma industry lobby. It is not very different from the situation with the oil industry. The traditional political system has been corrupted by these industry forces, which support both parties.

Could you tell me what traditional avenues were available to constituents that are not available anymore?

Voting. Pretty much all candidates receive money from pharma.

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

#354

Post by Ice_cream_suit »

"Humalog 100 IU/mL Cartridge Generic name: Insulin lispro 100 IU/mL PBS Listing: PBS/RPBS General benefit - 25x3mL and 1 repeat "

Schedule: NSW: 4, QLD: 4, VIC: 4, SA : 4, WA : 4, TAS: 4, ACT: 4, NT : 4 "

25 vials of 300 units Humalog costs my patients between 4 and 30 Australian dollars.

I can make a 5 minute phone call and get them larger amounts of insulin for the same price, if they are on bigger than usual doses.

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

#355

Post by unishark »

KaiserPro wrote: post #243

I simply don't understand the healthcare system in the US. Its meant to be a free market, yet insulin costs a ridiculous amount. However Opioids and synthetic opioids are cheap as chips. To put it into context, In the UK the NHS buy Insulin at you can see the prices here: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/insulin.html They come from the same companies and are produced to the same standard. How can a bureaucrati…

The US system is a heavily regulated market and roughly 50% socialized.

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

#356

Post by dragonwriter »

emodendroket wrote: post #337
dragonwriter wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means “the manufacturer realizes they won’t get the price they charge from other channels from you, so is willing to settle for the PR and tax benefits (and whatever residual cost is still charged) rather than nothing.

I mean in many cases the product is still profitable for them at the reduced rate, but why settle?

> I mean in many cases the product is still profitable for them at the reduced rate, but why settle?

Because for a customer who would pay nothing if their only choice was to get the drug at full price, settling for a reduced price (especially when you also get a tax deduction, and some PR benefit from advertising the discount for the needy) is more profitable than not settling.

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

#357

Post by [deleted] »

grayhatter wrote: post #321
swiley wrote: post #305

I've never quite understood why there's no clandestine insulin market. You're working up GMO yeast metabolites, that's not exactly a new idea.

Why take the risk in selling something like that? You're never going to be able to make money on it. Or did you mean people should just make their own?

[deleted]

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

#358

Post by nobodyandproud »

nceqs3 wrote: post #78
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.

I remember this article and problem, and the problem hasn’t gone away.

This is the worst exploitation and gaming.

1% get the freebies. And 99% get to pay a price that’s 10x the sticker cost.

That’s a rip-off and a complete burden to insurance and tax payers.

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

#359

Post by skohan »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #219
dekhn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the increased demand for insulin is not why the price is higher. Insulin is made in massive facilities in large batch runs. Making 5X to 10X is basically cost of materials, which haven't really increased enough to justify the price increase. This is (mostly likely) a rent-seeking situation where a few providers who are allowed in the market are milking it for all the profit they can.

> This is (mostly likely) a rent-seeking situation where a few providers who are allowed in the market are milking it for all the profit they can. That is also known as demand. They do because they can.

Many of your comments reflect a misunderstanding of basic economics

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

#360

Post by eganp »

tashi wrote: post #273
6502nerdface wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA blames "big pharma's stranglehold" for high insulin prices, but interestingly the cheapinsulin.org explanation [1] seems to be much more about "big insurance", with pharma companies basically forced to kow-tow if they want their products to be covered. [1] https://cheapinsulin.org/high-insulin-prices

Their claim is that if the pharma companies lowered the cost of insulin but then refused to give rebates to insurance companies for it, the insurance companies would stop covering insulin for diabetic patients? And they're using a diagram created by a pharmaceutical trade group to explain this? I'll be honest: I'm skeptical.

Unfortunately this is pretty accurate. Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) are contracted by insurers to set the formulary, in effect the list of drugs the insurer will pay for. They negotiate to lower drug costs, usually via manufacturer rebates.

Where this is perverted, is that the PBMs have complex compensation schedules wherein they receive a percentage of drug rebates. Their goal is to secure the largest rebate possible. Thus, either negotiate more effectively OR pressure manufacturers to increase list prices and give larger rebates. In practice, the latter happens most often. Insurers don't mind high list prices because they get large rebates and it encourages people to stay insured. Net prices (pharma revenue) on off-patent insulin have declined consistently since mid-2000s [0].

However, insulin is inexcusably expensive due to legacy regulation about equivalence for biologics and sticky patient preferences. Even current net prices are 2-5x too high relative to what a competitive generic market could produce.

[0] https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/net-prices-for-insulins-...

Post reply on HN