EpiPen Price Rise[W:398]

[Thoreau72]

And in the mean time let some kids die?

No, in the meantime MAXIMIZE PROFITS. It is capitalism run amok, capitalism without conscience. We americans have been acclimated to collateral damage.

 

[Ikari]

No, in the meantime MAXIMIZE PROFITS. It is capitalism run amok, capitalism without conscience. We americans have been acclimated to collateral damage.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/health/epipen-price-mylan-prescription-drugs-increase/index.html

And it's not even free-market. Some of this is due to the lack of competition, enforced through government regulation.

Indeed, the price of an EpiPen standard two-pack gradually grew to about $600. The same two-pack cost only about $100 in 2009.
Meanwhile, epinephrine, which can be purchased alone, costs just a few dollars. The EpiPen, manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Mylan, offers a portable way to administer doses. "Some patients and physicians are resorting to buying epinephrine ampoules and filling their own syringes," said Dr. Thomas Casale, a professor of medicine at the University of South Florida and executive vice president of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI).

Net spending on prescription drugs by consumers in the United States has increased about 20% between 2013 and 2015, according to a new paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Tuesday. Prescription drugs also cost about twice as much in the United States compared to other advanced nations.

In other words, EpiPens are not the only prescription drugs with steep price hikes. For instance, when Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the cost of Daraprim, a drug used by some cancer and AIDS patients, from $13.50 to $750 last year, it sparked outrage. The pharmaceutical company's former CEO was Martin Shkreli, known as "pharma bro." Albuterol, an asthma medicine, has also increased in price in recent years.

A House of Representatives report found in 2014 that 10 generic drugs experienced price increases just a year prior, ranging from a 420% hike to more than 8,000%.

And why?

Now, the new study suggests that a combination of market exclusivity provisions granted to drug manufacturers, and coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits, are both driving the high costs of prescription drugs nationwide.

Oh look, market exclusivity granted to drug manufacturers and other government related regulation have given these companies free reign. So a drug necessary for life, no competition....what did people thing was going to happen? And now we have this.

Theresa Ray, a 30-year-old mother in Cincinnati, was surprised to find that purchasing two EpiPen two-packs for her 6-year-old son would have cost her family about $1,300, she said. Her son was diagnosed with food allergies five years ago.

1300 bucks for a perishable item in order to ensure that her 5 year old is safe. All because government serves big corporations like Big Pharma over the People. There needs to be competition, we cannot put medicine into the hands of the rich alone.

 

[Patrickt]

Twenty years ago, I was at the emergency room at our local hospital one evening and the ambulance had to make a run to an nursing home to bring a patient to the hospital. The nursing home was about 100 yards from the hospital. I laughed and said, "Why don't they just wheel her over on a gurney?" "Liability. Their lawyers would have a fit." Fine. Then I said, "What's the charge for a 100 yard ambulance ride?" "$264." "What?" "That's the minimum that will be reimbursed by Medicare. If the ride is less than that the patient has to pay it so our minimum charge is $264."

I also recall when we had an amazing increase in the use of electric wheelchairs and other electric mobility devices. Some went to people who were perfectly healthy and some to people who were dead. Why? The government suddenly started paying so companies suddenly started selling.

So, I'm wondering who is paying for the Epipen? Is it usually the patient or is it the government?

 

[Ikari]

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 research is also conducted in non-pharmaceutical labs. We've gone the route of "private sector innovation", that's why we are at this point. They won't develop cures that replace expensive medicines because they don't make money off curing. They have incentive to drive prices up. The problem is that government has given them a clear runway to do so.

We'll need more government funded scientific and medical research and fair, open competition amongst pharmaceuticals. That way we can develop the best means of treating a disease, private companies can still make money and wouldn't have to invest so much up front, and the price to the people can be kept at a competitive level.

 

[Ikari]

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!

This is a regulated, controlled, and restricted market. There's no competition, Free Market is open to competition. So what we're looking at is a Closed Market.

 

[fmw]

It's not a fair market. The healthcare companies can leverage someone's need of a certain medication in order to make them pay more. It's disgusting, and it should be regulated.

That would ensure that drug research and development would slow or end. Perhaps that is a good thing but I always prefer to have the marketplace handle things like this.

 

[fmw]

This is a regulated, controlled, and restricted market. There's no competition, Free Market is open to competition. So what we're looking at is a Closed Market.

What you are looking at is a patent and an unscrupulous patent owner. It has nothing to do with either the free market or regulation.

 

[Ikari]

That would ensure that drug research and development would slow or end. Perhaps that is a good thing but I always prefer to have the marketplace handle things like this.

What marketplace? There's no competition. When there's something people need and no competition, what happens? If there was competition, then it could be something the market could possibly handle. But free market requires competition to keep prices competitive, that doesn't exist here. Government interference has given Pharma a free hand.

 

[Ikari]

What you are looking at is a patent and an unscrupulous patent owner. It has nothing to do with either the free market or regulation.

Of course it has nothing to do with free market, this is a closed market not a free one. Regulation is what turned it to closed.

 

[radcen]

It's not a fair market. The healthcare companies can leverage someone's need of a certain medication in order to make them pay more. It's disgusting, and it should be regulated.

That's the problem. It IS regulated, just not fairly or evenly. The corporations have it set up to their benefit precisely so they can take advantage of a large populace that is essentially shut out of the fairness equation.

 

[jimbo]

I am not saying it is right, but it likely is legal.
Some smart person may find a way around the delivery patent, and sell the result cheaper.

That will probably happen.

 

[radcen]

They mean everything. A single payer system removes freedom of choice. You can either be forced into a system or you can have a choice. The US is about the latter, that we all have a right to be free, and the purpose of govt is to protect that right. Not to force people to provide you with things you want or need, or to supply them for you. Other than the limited instances we all agreed on, like protection from invasion, or mail service.

The world is ever changing, and it's shortsighted mindsets like this that will eventually bring us single-payer. Somebody, might have been you, asked in a previous post (paraphrasing), "Would you rather live in this world, or that world?" Well, it's a two-way question.

 

[radcen]

The drug is generic, it's the delivery system. Can you show that any thing you mentioned there caused an order of magnitude increase in production costs? No, what happened was that the only competitor failed, and when that happened, they jacked prices from 50 bucks to 500 bucks.

I was wondering, so thank you for clarifying before I needed to ask.

Can't people use simple vials and syringes? They're cheap and they're effective.

I take insulin. Up until just recently I used vials and syringes because my insurer wouldn't cover pens. Now, I have to use pens because they won't cover the vials and syringes anymore (same product inside each delivery system). And guess what... my co-pay almost tripled when they made this change. Fortunately, I was able to get a coupon from the manufacturer that brought the co-pay down to almost what it was before, but it still increased unnecessarily, but the coupon is for only a limited time.

The "free market" people need to STFU. It's NOT a free market by any reasonable and rational stretch of the imagination. It's a protected market to the point of being the equivalent of a closed market. Companies charge what they can, because it's a closed market, not what they need or even what they would be able to justify in something that at least resembled a free market. I bet if it truly were a free market, prices would not be anywhere near as high as they are.

 

[digsbe]

Companies like to price gouge, insurance likes to barely cover or under-cover costs. I'm sure many plans will reimburse at last years pricing without updating it. In the end those screwed are the patients and pharmacies with the pharmacies taking much of the wrongfully attributed heat.

 

[Fiddytree]

I was wondering, so thank you for clarifying before I needed to ask.

Can't people use simple vials and syringes? They're cheap and they're effective.

I take insulin. Up until just recently I used vials and syringes because my insurer wouldn't cover pens. Now, I have to use pens because they won't cover the vials and syringes anymore (same product inside each delivery system). And guess what... my co-pay almost tripled when they made this change. Fortunately, I was able to get a coupon from the manufacturer that brought the co-pay down to almost what it was before, but it still increased unnecessarily, but the coupon is for only a limited time.

The "free market" people need to STFU. It's NOT a free market by any reasonable and rational stretch of the imagination. It's a protected market to the point of being the equivalent of a closed market. Companies charge what they can, because it's a closed market, not what they need or even what they would be able to justify in something that at least resembled a free market. I bet if it truly were a free market, prices would not be anywhere near as high as they are.

They can use syringes, yes.

 

[Ikari]

I was wondering, so thank you for clarifying before I needed to ask.

Can't people use simple vials and syringes? They're cheap and they're effective.

I take insulin. Up until just recently I used vials and syringes because my insurer wouldn't cover pens. Now, I have to use pens because they won't cover the vials and syringes anymore (same product inside each delivery system). And guess what... my co-pay almost tripled when they made this change. Fortunately, I was able to get a coupon from the manufacturer that brought the co-pay down to almost what it was before, but it still increased unnecessarily, but the coupon is for only a limited time.

The "free market" people need to STFU. It's NOT a free market by any reasonable and rational stretch of the imagination. It's a protected market to the point of being the equivalent of a closed market. Companies charge what they can, because it's a closed market, not what they need or even what they would be able to justify in something that at least resembled a free market. I bet if it truly were a free market, prices would not be anywhere near as high as they are.

I'm not sure, the CNN link I posted before did say that some are going so far as trying to reload their injection system themselves, so maybe it's possible. But I think that perhaps it's not too easy to do with the EpiPen.

If this were free market, I think we'd still be seeing these things at about 60 bucks a pop, not 600. And I wonder if it were some form of government regulation or "oversight" that even led to your insurance provider dropping vials and syringes.

With no competition and government regulation protecting them; these assholes can just jack the price to unreasonable levels. Healthcare cannot become for the rich only, no moral society could ever think so.

 

[Johnson]

This news makes me glad I'm not allergic to anything...that I know of.

 

[radcen]

The drug is generic, it's the delivery system. Can you show that any thing you mentioned there caused an order of magnitude increase in production costs? No, what happened was that the only competitor failed, and when that happened, they jacked prices from 50 bucks to 500 bucks.

Thinking about this more: I'm actually ok with a company who invests in R&D getting a patent on the actual medicine for a period of time. It is fair that they recoup their investment costs and even make a profit.

But, with apologies to the alleged free-marketers out there, I do not see a delivery system as being sooo special as to being allowed to trigger this type of price gouging in a protected market.

 

[countryboy]

I was wondering, so thank you for clarifying before I needed to ask.

Can't people use simple vials and syringes? They're cheap and they're effective.

I take insulin. Up until just recently I used vials and syringes because my insurer wouldn't cover pens. Now, I have to use pens because they won't cover the vials and syringes anymore (same product inside each delivery system). And guess what... my co-pay almost tripled when they made this change. Fortunately, I was able to get a coupon from the manufacturer that brought the co-pay down to almost what it was before, but it still increased unnecessarily, but the coupon is for only a limited time.

The "free market" people need to STFU. It's NOT a free market by any reasonable and rational stretch of the imagination. It's a protected market to the point of being the equivalent of a closed market. Companies charge what they can, because it's a closed market, not what they need or even what they would be able to justify in something that at least resembled a free market. I bet if it truly were a free market, prices would not be anywhere near as high as they are.

The trouble with vials and syringes is, it may be extremely difficult (or impossible) to use while in the grip of anaphylactic shock.

 

[radcen]

I'm not sure, the CNN link I posted before did say that some are going so far as trying to reload their injection system themselves, so maybe it's possible. But I think that perhaps it's not too easy to do with the EpiPen.

If this were free market, I think we'd still be seeing these things at about 60 bucks a pop, not 600. And I wonder if it were some form of government regulation or "oversight" that even led to your insurance provider dropping vials and syringes.

With no competition and government regulation protecting them; these assholes can just jack the price to unreasonable levels. Healthcare cannot become for the rich only, no moral society could ever think so.

My insulin coverage changed just the beginning of this calendar year. I have been meaning to investigate further *why*, but haven't.

If the alleged free-marketers... I say "alleged", because they're not defending the free market at all, they're defending an artificially protected and closed market... were being intellectually consistent, they'd be just as angry over this as people like you and I are. They'd be calling for an end to the artificial protectionism so that we could have something that at least gave the illusion of a real free market. Then, and only then, would their free market arguments be valid.

 

[radcen]

The trouble with vials and syringes is, it may be extremely difficult (or impossible) to use while in the grip of anaphylactic shock.

That's a fair point (no pun intended :2razz. Plus, if administered by others they may not know how much, or whatever. That's the result of things like syringes becoming so uncommon now that most people are afraid of them, though they have proven to be legitimate for a long time.

 

[radcen]

This news makes me glad I'm not allergic to anything...that I know of.

I have read that most people grow in and out of allergies their entire lives, so you never know what tomorrow will bring.

 

[countryboy]

Thinking about this more: I'm actually ok with a company who invests in R&D getting a patent on the actual medicine for a period of time. It is fair that they recoup their investment costs and even make a profit.

But, with apologies to the alleged free-marketers out there, I do not see a delivery system as being sooo special as to being allowed to trigger this type of price gouging in a protected market.

I also have trouble understanding what is sooo special about an auto-injector. I suspect it is not an easy device to manufacture, and, government rules and regs probably exacerbate this problem.

I see you are another one who is choosing to ignore the role government plays in all this, and instead choose to blame "free marketers". Even to the point of telling them to "STFU". :roll:

 

[Jetboogieman]

Their product - they make it, they set the price.

It's not a complicated thing.

Once again you show that you "value life".

If you're too poor, you don't get to live.

Simple as that with you.

 

[jonny5]

Yes... and Novo Nordisk would still have to pour R&D resources into development, testing and approvals. They might even want or need to develop their own generic epinephrine, which again takes time and R&D.

To what end, exactly? To slightly undercut Mylan on price? In order to make it worth their while, they will still need to charge more than the original price, which apparently went up 400% or more for no reason whatsoever. It will also divert resources from Novo Nordisk's own R&D efforts, which include fighting diabetes and hormone replacement. That's not an efficient use of resources for anyone.

Again, the problem here is that medicine is not a normal market. This is not like walking into a supermarket, where you can freely choose between the red delicious Granny Smith and organic Pink Lady apples. Patients are essentially captive, and insurance obscures the costs, until it blows up to the point where insurers need to increase the deductibles.

This is not a case of a minor misalignment of the market. It's a market failure that is a direct result of treating pharmaceuticals like a commodity.

They are commodities. And the market is already dealing with it. Consumer and price pressure. The higher they raise their price the more likley competition comes in.