If people don't want to buy two epipen there's always that neat trick for multiple doses in precarious locations far from hospitals. It is a well known hack taught in wilderness medicine training. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luultUD0eK0
So a "used" epi-pen's internal syringe might contain 4-5x more epinephrine than actually goes into a standard dose? I assume this means most of the expense of making it comes from the housing/mechanics. (And recouping whatever cost of QA/approvals.)
The drug itself is very cheap. With an Rx you can purchase an ampule with about 3 doses for I worked at a summer camp where we would carry 1 or 2 pens plus a bunch of ampules if we were in a wilderness situation where we couldn't get to emergency care and needed more than one dose.
For the same reason there were no competitors to daraprim before Martin Shkreli decided to be a complete ja. When the price is low enough that there's little profit to be had, nobody bothers competing because it's not worth the time, money, and effort to get FDA approval. When the price gets jacked up like that, you will find generics pop up quickly. The problem is the window between the price hike and when generics…
Hmmm... from your description, it sounds like the market is working, just not fast enough for everyone. It's not worth it for a company to develop their own Epi-pen since profits are so low. Eventually enough drop out that one manufacturer raises the price. Significant profits result which attracts other competitors. Prices drop. Would you just prefer the gov't to step in and set the price? What happens if companies…
> Would you just prefer the gov't to step in and set the price? What happens if companies decide it's not worth the effort? Have the gov't force them to produce the product?
Cut out the private market and have the government manufacture it directly.
Scarcity demands innovation. I don't think its being taken lightly; more like, "a private company is gouging medical users and the government won't step in". Not left with many options when your life depends on it. EDIT: Alternatively, a "better" temporary solution would be to arrange for the import of these from Canada, where the price is fixed by the government.
Not so much fixed as "Canada doesn't insist that everyone make separate deals so everyone can get fucked harder". It turns out when you have millions of people dealing together as a block, they have much more bargaining power.
I agree. My hack is safer than 3D printing medical devices, as its simply a geographical arbitrage.
I have no evidence, but this headline coupled with the insulin price hike... it really feels like this is an attempt to manufacture a crisis. I fill a prescription for epi-pens once a year (nut allergies), but insurance bears the brunt of the cost.
Insurance simply distributes the high cost to many people via higher premiums. Without competition to reduce the cost or regulations that set the price by law, the high cost remains.
>or regulations that set the price by law, the high cost remains
It is important to note that even such a law does not magically remove the high cost. Certain products have a high price for a reason and setting the price by fiat is guaranteed to cause shortages. That's when people really start dying. See Venezuela for a prime current example.
Nah because it would upset the free market. I mentioned in another comment when someone from Europe or Canada asked something to the effect of "how come everything has to be free market in US even healthcare and such". And I think the answer is we treat free market as a religion. We don't evaluate what is better, healthier, more rational answer for a problem. Like say, "How do we keep people from dying from anaphylax…
Why do you and many other characterize this as a free market failure? If anything this is a regulatory failure.
I am in the opposite camp. I characterize this as a free market success and as a failure of a civilized society to provide basic healthcare for its citizens.
The adrenaclick generic is much cheaper than the epipen, with or without insurance. Although technically different epinephrine auto injectors cannot be substituted (you can only be prescribed the one written by your doctor, or its generic equivalent), practically speaking the only difference between the epipen and the adrenaclick design is the instructions for use. I would hope there isn't a case of doctors being unaware of the alternatives.
This seems less damming to me considering the medicine naturally occurs inside your body. What reason is there that nobody else can make a competing product for cheaper?
The drug patent has long expired. It is an autoinjection mechanism that is patented. There have been many competitors in the market but some got recalled due to flaws.
(2) is a myth: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor... (1) seems like a total cop-out to me. By that logic, you can blame everything on the government. Some guy murders his family in a fit of rage? Government should have done a better job preventing it. Also, part of the point of this kind of outrage is to punish these companies for their behavior so that the evil choice is not the most profit…
If corporations don't have an obligation to maximize profits for shareholders, then you'd better try and take that argument to shareholders rather than believe someone's opinion piece on the matter. I didn't say corporations are legally required to seek profits, but they do have profit-seeking obligations in most cases. Without investors' expectations of future profits, those companies wouldn't exist in the first pla…
There is no inherent obligation to maximize profits. Most companies have that as their goal because that's what their shareholders want. But then saying that the manufacturer is obligated to maximize profits is a really bizarre and rather disingenuous way of saying that the people who actually own the manufacturer prioritize profits over lives. They don't have to do that, they just do. There's no "obligation" anywhere in there, just people's preferences. Saying that companies are obligated to maximize profits is just a way of saying that it's OK for people to value money above all else, even the well-being of their fellow humans, as long as there's enough indirection in the process.
Hmmm... from your description, it sounds like the market is working, just not fast enough for everyone. It's not worth it for a company to develop their own Epi-pen since profits are so low. Eventually enough drop out that one manufacturer raises the price. Significant profits result which attracts other competitors. Prices drop. Would you just prefer the gov't to step in and set the price? What happens if companies…
> Would you just prefer the gov't to step in and set the price? What happens if companies decide it's not worth the effort? Have the gov't force them to produce the product? Cut out the private market and have the government manufacture it directly.
Can you give me some examples where the gov't has come in as a manufacturer and it's actually gone well?
Shouldn't the FDA require that manufacturers provide evidence that consumer medical devices can be used reliably for their intended purpose? What makes you think the FDA doesn't require this?
The fact that three out of five people trained to use this lifesaving product weren't able to.
That doesn't mean the FDA doesn't ask for data.
I have a friend who works in the industry and it's his job to run usability trials for medical devices. The FDA won't approve a device without it.