EpiPen Price Rise[W:398]

[Visbek]

Well well well, it looks like the eeeeevil pharmaceutical companies aren't solely to blame for the rising cost of prescription medications. Gorsh, who woulda thunk it? :roll: EpiPen cost soars, but it's not the only drug to - CNN.com

It's astounding how you ignore pretty much everything that contradicts your view.

What do we see, right in the article?
• The drug epinephrine only costs a few dollars per dose
• The medication expires after 1 year
• insurers are increasingly passing the cost onto patients
• this is a life-saving medication, not a cosmetic or easily replaceable one

Equally important is what the article doesn't say:
- It doesn't explain how government regulations wound up increasing costs for any drugs
- That no government regulations increased the cost of this drug over the past decade
- it doesn't explain at all why the cost of the epipen went up.
- it doesn't say how difficult it is for competitors to release an equivalent product
- it doesn't mention that patients often need to carry two (or more) epipens with them, as the allergic reactions can often have multiple phases
- that epipens now make 40% of Mylan's profits, and drive $1 billion in revenue per year
- the "epipen cards" are basically a scam, and don't cover a lot of people, such as those with high deductible plans (which are increasingly common), and the discounted price is often close to the previous costs

Furthermore, the price of EpiPens didn't just go up overnight, it has been steadily increasing over time.

It increased by 450% over 9 years, vastly outpacing inflation.

If it had kept pace with inflation, the current cost would be closer to $115, rather than the current $600 or more.

 

[apdst]

Yeah. That pisses me off.

I only recently became allergic to wasps, and in the last couple years had to make sure I had an epi-pin with me

First year, I paid a 35.00 co-pay.

This year. 750.00.

Un ****ing believable.

You can thank the government for that one.

 

[Threegoofs]

i want to set up a system to short circuit patent trolls. hence,



that seems like a good solution to this kind of thing under our current health care model.

Well, this isn't really a patent troll issue....

And trying to shorten a patent punitively would be practically impossible. Any case would drag out until the end of the natural patent life anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Threegoofs]

It's astounding how you ignore pretty much everything that contradicts your view.

What do we see, right in the article?
• The drug epinephrine only costs a few dollars per dose
• The medication expires after 1 year
• insurers are increasingly passing the cost onto patients
• this is a life-saving medication, not a cosmetic or easily replaceable one

Equally important is what the article doesn't say:
- It doesn't explain how government regulations wound up increasing costs for any drugs
- That no government regulations increased the cost of this drug over the past decade
- it doesn't explain at all why the cost of the epipen went up.
- it doesn't say how difficult it is for competitors to release an equivalent product
- it doesn't mention that patients often need to carry two (or more) epipens with them, as the allergic reactions can often have multiple phases
- that epipens now make 40% of Mylan's profits, and drive $1 billion in revenue per year
- the "epipen cards" are basically a scam, and don't cover a lot of people, such as those with high deductible plans (which are increasingly common), and the discounted price is often close to the previous costs



It increased by 450% over 9 years, vastly outpacing inflation.

If it had kept pace with inflation, the current cost would be closer to $115, rather than the current $600 or more.

As horrible as it feels to take countryboys side, the issue really is with regulation....specifically the inefficiency of the FDA to process and approve generic drugs/devices at a faster rate.

Of course, the solution here is to give MORE taxpayer funding to the FDA, not lessen regulations which ensure that epicenter is safe and effective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Visbek]

As horrible as it feels to take countryboys side, the issue really is with regulation....specifically the inefficiency of the FDA to process and approve generic drugs/devices at a faster rate.

Of course, the solution here is to give MORE taxpayer funding to the FDA, not lessen regulations which ensure that epicenter is safe and effective.

While I concur, it's also not like we can just throw more money at the FDA, and cut review times by 90%.

IIRC companies run the trials, and submit their findings to the FDA. It could still take a year to develop and prep manufacture of a safe self-injector that doesn't violate existing trademarks, and another 6 months to test.

The test isn't a guarantee of effectiveness either, as we see with the competing self-injector, which did not deliver consistent amounts of the medication.

AFAIK the part we can speed up is the FDA reviewing the results. Even with that, there will be some limits, as there are only so many people qualified to do that work.

Worse yet, a company like Mylan could watch a competitor run through its trials, and then slash prices when the new pen is approved. This is about competition, after all, and why not hurt the competition if they're going to slash your profits?


The primary government regulations affecting price (not cost) are mostly trademark laws, which generate monopolies. Companies have a time-limited monopoly on drugs and devices, meaning they have to squeeze as hard as they can while they have that monopoly. Since many medications are not optional, the demand is relatively inelastic.

Even without trademarks, companies (like Turing) can exploit the fact that it can take 6, 12, 18 months for a competitor to ramp up production on a drug that is cheap to produce. E.g. take a drug that's generic, that has few suppliers, that is cheap, that is required by somebody, and jack up the price. It might take people 6 months or a year to notice; a competitor will have to invest roughly 1 year to put together the manufacturing, testing and marketing of an alternative. During that time, Turing rakes in profits. Given that the drug paid off its R&D long ago, that is pure profit. It doesn't matter if they get undercut 18 months later.

I.e. the big issue here isn't Big Bad Government Regulation. It's abuse of monopoly power, which no good capitalist should salute, let alone defend.

 

[countryboy]

It's astounding how you ignore pretty much everything that contradicts your view.

What do we see, right in the article?
• The drug epinephrine only costs a few dollars per dose
• The medication expires after 1 year
• insurers are increasingly passing the cost onto patients
• this is a life-saving medication, not a cosmetic or easily replaceable one

Equally important is what the article doesn't say:
- It doesn't explain how government regulations wound up increasing costs for any drugs
- That no government regulations increased the cost of this drug over the past decade
- it doesn't explain at all why the cost of the epipen went up.
- it doesn't say how difficult it is for competitors to release an equivalent product
- it doesn't mention that patients often need to carry two (or more) epipens with them, as the allergic reactions can often have multiple phases
- that epipens now make 40% of Mylan's profits, and drive $1 billion in revenue per year
- the "epipen cards" are basically a scam, and don't cover a lot of people, such as those with high deductible plans (which are increasingly common), and the discounted price is often close to the previous costs



It increased by 450% over 9 years, vastly outpacing inflation.

If it had kept pace with inflation, the current cost would be closer to $115, rather than the current $600 or more.

The only one ignoring the facts covered in the article is, YOU. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...62171-epipen-price-rise-5.html#post1066235346

 

[Kushinator]

IMO, i don't believe the best way to combat this issue with profiteering is with deregulating the drug industry to speed up delivery to the consumer. At the same time, i also do not believe it is acceptable to allow x amount of preventable deaths to occur in order for there to be enough public backlash to change the pricing scheme. Perhaps new legislation that redefines pharma trademark law, e.g. forces the developers that invest in the R&D to license out the manufacturing to third party pharmaceutical firms at an upfront cost that recuperates some, if not all, the input costs.

 

[Kushinator]

The only one ignoring the facts covered in the article is, YOU. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...62171-epipen-price-rise-5.html#post1066235346

Great response :roll:

 

[Absentglare]

IMO, i don't believe the best way to combat this issue with profiteering is with deregulating the drug industry to speed up delivery to the consumer. At the same time, i also do not believe it is acceptable to allow x amount of preventable deaths to occur in order for there to be enough public backlash to change the pricing scheme. Perhaps new legislation that redefines pharma trademark law, e.g. forces the developers that invest in the R&D to license out the manufacturing to third party pharmaceutical firms at an upfront cost that recuperates some, if not all, the input costs.

There is no excuse for price gouging consumers.

Necessities simply need to be regulated for the good of society.

 

[Threegoofs]

EpiPen Price Rise

While I concur, it's also not like we can just throw more money at the FDA, and cut review times by 90%.

IIRC companies run the trials, and submit their findings to the FDA. It could still take a year to develop and prep manufacture of a safe self-injector that doesn't violate existing trademarks, and another 6 months to test.

The test isn't a guarantee of effectiveness either, as we see with the competing self-injector, which did not deliver consistent amounts of the medication.

AFAIK the part we can speed up is the FDA reviewing the results. Even with that, there will be some limits, as there are only so many people qualified to do that work.

Worse yet, a company like Mylan could watch a competitor run through its trials, and then slash prices when the new pen is approved. This is about competition, after all, and why not hurt the competition if they're going to slash your profits?


The primary government regulations affecting price (not cost) are mostly trademark laws, which generate monopolies. Companies have a time-limited monopoly on drugs and devices, meaning they have to squeeze as hard as they can while they have that monopoly. Since many medications are not optional, the demand is relatively inelastic.

Even without trademarks, companies (like Turing) can exploit the fact that it can take 6, 12, 18 months for a competitor to ramp up production on a drug that is cheap to produce. E.g. take a drug that's generic, that has few suppliers, that is cheap, that is required by somebody, and jack up the price. It might take people 6 months or a year to notice; a competitor will have to invest roughly 1 year to put together the manufacturing, testing and marketing of an alternative. During that time, Turing rakes in profits. Given that the drug paid off its R&D long ago, that is pure profit. It doesn't matter if they get undercut 18 months later.

I.e. the big issue here isn't Big Bad Government Regulation. It's abuse of monopoly power, which no good capitalist should salute, let alone defend.

Well, the issue is both things....but it's not big bad govt, it's just bad inefficient government that's the problem.

Yes, it might take some time to get an auto injector, but this isn't big pharma development, or even new device stuff.... It's pretty simple mundane tech that should get to market quickly except for FDA hurdles and delays.

The Turing issue is different..that's extreme gouging and it again was made possible by loopholes in FDA regs.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kushinator]

There is no excuse for price gouging consumers.

Necessities simply need to be regulated for the good of society.

The problem becomes one of development; who is going to pony up $200 million for a drug that saves lives and becomes public domain?

 

[Surrealistik]

Well, the issue is both things....but it's not big bad govt, it's just bad inefficient government that's the problem.

More like bad bribed government.

The Turing issue is different..that's extreme gouging and it again was made possible by loopholes in FDA regs.

Can you guess who paid exorbitant amounts in campaign contributions and lobbying fees to get those loopholes legislated?

 

[Absentglare]

The problem becomes one of development; who is going to pony up $200 million for a drug that saves lives and becomes public domain?

The public should further subsidize healthcare R&D. That way, we know the price tag, and it is spread out over the entire risk pool, instead of financially ****ing over the unlucky patients who happen to suffer.

 

[Chainsaw]

What is it with some pharma companies are they being taken over by douche bags?
Forbes Welcome

But, but, but Obamacare was supposed to CONTROL costs......or do you have selective memory? But we all know Obama is a sociopathic lying ahole don't we!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The only one ignoring the facts covered in the article is, YOU. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...62171-epipen-price-rise-5.html#post1066235346

Wow. You actually think those refute his points.

That's sad.

 

[Kushinator]

The public should further subsidize healthcare R&D. That way, we know the price tag, and it is spread out over the entire risk pool, instead of financially ****ing over the unlucky patients who happen to suffer.

Even if subsidized (as much R&D already is), that doesn't replace the for-profit industries that conduct/direct much of the research. I do not have much faith in creating a central government body at the helm of medical R&D. Private sector innovation has to be tapped; we just need to figure out a way to balance compensation with social responsibility.

 

[Surrealistik]

Even if subsidized (as much R&D already is), that doesn't replace the for-profit industries that conduct/direct much of the research. I do not have much faith in creating a central government body at the helm of medical R&D. Private sector innovation has to be tapped; we just need to figure out a way to balance compensation with social responsibility.

A lot of countries already do just that.

The fundamental problem with the States is that private money is far too closely entwined with public policy, particularly with free speech being conflated with money in politics and the latter subsequently being given 1st amendment protections, so achieving that balance is nearly impossible by design of the pharmaceuticals industry.

 

[Helix]

Well, this isn't really a patent troll issue....

from what i've read, a company that didn't develop the medicine delivery device bought the rights with the intention of milking the patent for all that they could get out of it.

Mylan Execs Gave Themselves Raises As They Hiked EpiPen Prices - NBC News

In 2007 the company bought the rights to EpiPen, a device used to provide emergency epinephrine to stop a potentially fatal allergic reaction and began raising its price. In 2008 and 2009, Mylan raised the price by 5 percent. At the end of 2009 it tried out a 19 percent hike. The years 2010-2013 saw a succession of 10 percent price hikes.

And from the fourth quarter of 2013 to the second quarter of 2016, Mylan steadily raised EpiPen prices 15 percent every other quarter.

my argument is that in a situation like this, the length of the patent should be reduced. this would discourage acquisitions with the sole intent of raising the price of a medicine under patent protection.

 

[Absentglare]

Even if subsidized (as much R&D already is), that doesn't replace the for-profit industries that conduct/direct much of the research. I do not have much faith in creating a central government body at the helm of medical R&D. Private sector innovation has to be tapped; we just need to figure out a way to balance compensation with social responsibility.

I'm more talking about offsetting more the costs in trade for negotiating the prices for American patients rather than actually owning the industry. I admit, i don't have a specific solution because i lack the expertise to draft one.

 

[Threegoofs]

More like bad bribed government.



Can you guess who paid exorbitant amounts in campaign contributions and lobbying fees to get those loopholes legislated?

That's a simple way of looking at it.

Wrong, but simple.

The regs were in place for a reason. No one until a couple years ago came up with a scheme to subvert them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Threegoofs]

from what i've read, a company that didn't develop the medicine delivery device bought the rights with the intention of milking the patent for all that they could get out of it.

Mylan Execs Gave Themselves Raises As They Hiked EpiPen Prices - NBC News



my argument is that in a situation like this, the length of the patent should be reduced. this would discourage acquisitions with the sole intent of raising the price of a medicine under patent protection.

I think they just took advantage of the new hole in the competition after the Epi-Q device was recalled.

And again, trying to mess with IP like that based on some abstract concept of gouging would be litigated for years and years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Surrealistik]

That's a simple way of looking at it.

Wrong, but simple.

The regs were in place for a reason. No one until a couple years ago came up with a scheme to subvert them.

Do you honestly think that's the case? Patent/IP abuse and trolling/camping have gone on for a long time.


Regs are indeed put in place for a reason; often they're employed in hopes of advancing the public good.

Sometimes and increasingly often unfortunately, they're put in place to champion the private good of select donors and other influential interests (while masquerading and being presented as having the intentions of the former).

 

[Phys251]

All hail the Lord God Free Market! It continues to provide for us as it sees profitable! We consumers may not understand what the Lord God Free Market does or why it does it, but the Free Market moves in mysterious ways!

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you honestly think that's the case? Patent/IP abuse and trolling/camping have gone on for a long time.


Regs are indeed put in place for a reason; often they're employed in hopes of advancing the public good.

Sometimes and increasingly often unfortunately, they're put in place to champion the private good of select donors and other influential interests.

Well, the one that triggered the Turing pharma thing wasn't. The rule was put in to ensure you used a branded drug to get PK equivalence tests.

Shikreli (actually, someone else did it before him) was the one who saw it as a loophole and planned on a restricted distribution system for the drug to prevent generic houses from obtaining it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Surrealistik]

Well, the one that triggered the Turing pharma thing wasn't. The rule was put in to ensure you used a branded drug to get PK equivalence tests.

Shikreli (actually, someone else did it before him) was the one who saw it as a loophole and planned on a restricted distribution system for the drug to prevent generic houses from obtaining it.

Whether or not the regs in this particular case were forged with the explicit purpose of gouging (often anti-competitive legislation is forged with the intent of hindering competition with red tape while typically claiming consumer protection due to plausible deniability), it is indisputable that patent law is often shaped and contaminated by special interests looking to do exactly that and optimize their profits whether or not it comes at the expense of the public good. Indeed, I believe that the Hatch-Waxman act was authored with noble or at least not corrupt intentions, but this is far from the first time it has been abused ( Driving Up Drug Prices - NYTimes.com ), and nothing about it has been changed despite such abuses, blighting the legislation in its current form as a de facto legislative cudgel of the pharmaceutical industry (how long can you uphold an obviously flawed status quo without being complicit?), and inferring monied influence.

For example, in response to the outrage surrounding Turing, Shkreli has hired on PR firms and notorious K-street pharma-lobbyists to ensure that it can continue its racket; I am certain they will prove successful as many others have been in the past.