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

Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 595 posts

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#381

Post by ampdepolymerase »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #289

"Big Pharma" in the eyes of the public is two related but separate issues; 1) the weird employment-insurance-hospital loop that has developed in the US, and the terrible second-order-consequences of all the open-high/settle-low insurer carer system it led to, and 2) the medicine advertisements, and all the terrible consequences thereof. The second one seems like a much easier thing to get rid of using hard government…

And the Congress mandated monopoly on residency positions and building new hospitals. We would have a lot more advances in medical science if MD positions were not gate kept by the artificially limited residency positions.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#382

Post by code_duck »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #319
wvenable wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2018, the average insulin price in the US was $98.70, compared to $6.94 in Australia, $12.00 in Canada, and $7.52 in the UK. This is a 100 year old drug.

It isn't a 100 year old drug. There are newer formulations that are faster acting, longer lasting, easier to administer, etc. They're newer so they're still under patent so they're a lot more expensive (because the rest of the world makes the US pay to develop the newer formulations). When insurance is paying for it, people prefer the newer formulations. Then, since most people have insurance, there wasn't enough of…

That was true at one point, but the newer formulations of insulin are old enough to mostly have biosimilars, aka follow-ons, the equivalent of generics for drugs produced by bioengineering. Humalog/Lispro/Admelog, Lantus/Basaglar and others, in many cases made by the same company as the original.

The prices of insulin have been increased steadily each year by about 11% for the past 20 years. There's nothing about research or costs that justify that for 20 year old drugs.

https://www.businessinsider.com/insulin-price-increased-last...

The old formulations (Human insulin, NPH) can be purchased without a prescription at Walmart for fairly low prices - the price that people pay for modern insulin in the rest of the world.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#383

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

jjcon wrote: post #373
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #370

here [1] they say that Kamala Harris is seen as a friend of big tech and silicon valley, that would imply she is a friend of big tech corporations. Does this step signify a rift between Biden and Harris, or is that not the case? [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210206212101/https://www.nytime...

That’s possible but the article is a year old. This past year and a half I think if you polled the HN crowd you would even see a dramatic shift in perspective on proper policy for big tech antitrust legislation. It is not unreasonable to assume those same realizations are happening or being expressed by government officials as well.

it makes sense that Biden wants to tax big corporations to finance his infrastructure projects. [1] that would make sense if Biden is a big fan of president Franklin D. Roosevelt, i am not sure if Roosevelt is as attractive to someone from the generation of Harris. (however i don't know if the generation aspect is a matter of importance, in this context)

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-offers-tax-d...

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#384

Post by onion2k »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #301
hyperhopper wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere

This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…

I always assumed a fairly significant chunk of that research is to find minor modifications to existing drugs in order to maintain patents that are about to expire. It certainly feels like that happens a lot.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#385

Post by o8r3oFTZPE »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #289

"Big Pharma" in the eyes of the public is two related but separate issues; 1) the weird employment-insurance-hospital loop that has developed in the US, and the terrible second-order-consequences of all the open-high/settle-low insurer carer system it led to, and 2) the medicine advertisements, and all the terrible consequences thereof. The second one seems like a much easier thing to get rid of using hard government…

""Big Pharma" in the eyes of the public..."

What the public does not see is how the patent system is gamed by generic sellers. How this works is not something that can be easily explained in a single paragraph.

The problem is specifically mentioned in the Fact Sheet/Order. This is a legitimate antitrust issue but it is exceedingly difficult to succeed in the courts.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#386

Post by code_duck »

viraptor wrote: post #353
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a 100 year old drug. There are newer formulations that are faster acting, longer lasting, easier to administer, etc. They're newer so they're still under patent so they're a lot more expensive (because the rest of the world makes the US pay to develop the newer formulations). When insurance is paying for it, people prefer the newer formulations. Then, since most people have insurance, there wasn't enough of…

> Then, since most people have insurance, there wasn't enough of a market for the older formulations for anybody to bother making them for the margins you get for making a generic. Is there some research confirming that? It doesn't quite match my out-of-us experience with other drugs. I get a choice of 2-3 brands of ibuprofen and another 1-2 generics for it. Why wouldn't the same apply to insulin? I expect that it's…

You can buy the original insulins from 80 years ago for $35-50. Those are human/porcine insulin and one called NPH that has an intermediate duration. Some people who used those before the newer long/short/rapid actings were developed still prefer them, and others use them for cost reasons esp. because they can be obtained in the US without a prescription. I only know of one brand, Humulin by Lilly.

For modern insulin, they were indeed patented but mostly generics called follow-ons or biosimilars are available. Lantus has an alternative Basaglar that costs about 1/3 as a much. Humalog can be replaced with Admelog. The manufacturer of Novolog makes a biosimilar of their own insulin and sells it for 1/3 as much, if that makes any sense.

The various types differ a bit... Lantus has a slower absorption and thus longer duration than it's main competitor, Levemir. Novolog differs from Humalog in one protein on one side of the chain or something. Some people can't use one or the other due to allergies to the excipients or unexplained resistance to the effects.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#387

Post by xmprt »

Auracle wrote: post #360
prestigious wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least give the option of the old shit

Walmart sells vials of the generic “old shit” for cheap.

Do you have a source? I wasn't able to find any mention of it on Walmart's website.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#388

Post by NicoJuicy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #301
hyperhopper wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere

This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…

Then why is every covid vaccine ouside the US, if other countries are "free-riding" the US R&D?

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#389

Post by nradov »

nerfhammer wrote: post #372
diffeomorphism wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are off by a factor 10. The 1 billion is in total over all the time needed to produce the drug (about 10 years), while ads are per year.

ok, so 65 drugs in development, with 6.5 drugs released per year? does that seem plausible for the entire pharma industry?

The FDA approved 53 novel drugs in 2020. That was relatively high; most years have lower totals.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/817534/annual-novel-drug...

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#390

Post by watwut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #301
hyperhopper wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere

This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing every…

> This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D

Most of those money goes on marketing.

Moreover, I think that US citizens did not signed up to pay medical R&D for whole world while they are sick. In fact, US citizens tend to have issues with paying researcher, social support and so on from their money.

R&D paid from taxes or insurance makes way more sense then paid by those who already deal with health crisis.

Post reply on HN