• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA to ban affordable inhalers?

rathi said:
The only problems that Pharma ran into was that they wanted to increase profit margins. They chose not to make the drug back in 2007 despite encouragement from the FDA.
Click to expand...


Some times the arguments of anti business people like you amaze me.


First you say Pharma just wants to increase profits, seeing the new inhalers are going to do that, wouldn't have have increased profits back in 2007 as well? Wouldn't they have enjoyed those increased profits for the last 4 years ? Common business sense says that if you have a product that is going to make you more in profit, you get it to the market as fast as you can.


Seeing they didn't do this, one could just as easily say that Pharma kept making this product and putting in on shelves because it was more affordable and helped people at the same time. I realize that you won't and can't accept such a thing, because it doesn't paint big business as a villain'


Another thing seeing you seem to “know” this increase in price is for nothing but profits, perhaps you could direct me to the site showing that this new propellant is the same cost to the manufacturer as the old one ? Or that the same amount of propellant can be used per inhaler? Are there any handling or storage requirements that are different for the new propellant ?


That's a short list of things that might have something to do with the increased in costs, but I'm sure you have all that data at your fingertips seeing you seem to know that the increase in cost is for purely profitable reasons and nothing else.
 
Muhammed said:
And back in 2008 it was thought that an epinephrine inhaler using a non-CFC propellant could be developed before 2012. But they've run into problems. That turned out not to be the case and now it is not expected to be on the market by then.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know the details about why they can't simply use another propellent. Did you have any specifics regarding their "problems"?

I'm of the camp that big Pharm simply wants to get more cash by forcing consumers to use their more expensive drugs.
 
Tettsuo said:
I'd like to know the details about why they can't simply use another propellent. Did you have any specifics regarding their "problems"?

I'm of the camp that big Pharm simply wants to get more cash by forcing consumers to use their more expensive drugs.
Click to expand...
It appears that to some, including the OP, the only detail of importance is that this is occurring on Obama's watch . . . .
 
Lokiate said:
Wait, wtf? environmental impact? What a load of horse ****.
Click to expand...
If you're unaware of the multi-decade controversy over CFC's, then I agree -- WTF?
 
Tettsuo said:
I'd like to know the details about why they can't simply use another propellent. Did you have any specifics regarding their "problems"?
Click to expand...
Apparently they've developed one with another propellant, it just took them longer than expected. The problem is getting the Obama FDA to approve it.

Tettsuo said:
I'm of the camp that big Pharm simply wants to get more cash by forcing consumers to use their more expensive drugs.
Click to expand...
Armstrong Pharmaceuticals is not "big Pharm" by any stretch of the term. They are small fry in a sea of great white sharks.
 
Karl said:
It appears that to some, including the OP, the only detail of importance is that this is occurring on Obama's watch . . . .
Click to expand...

And it appears that you are only here to defend Obama at all costs.
 
Karl said:
If you're unaware of the multi-decade controversy over CFC's, then I agree -- WTF?
Click to expand...
I'm aware, I'm also aware that medical use is exempt. This has nothing to do with the environment, and everything about money, and increased intrusiveness by government agencies. If CFC is really the issue, why not use an alternative propellant (even though it is exempt), instead of limiting patients choices to expensive, prescription only medications?
 
The story is even more complicated that it looks at first glance. I'm starting to think this issue is more about incompetence rather than malice.

1) The FDA started its phaseout process in 2006. It was determined that there were no technical barriers to producing a HFA epinephrine replacement.
2) Pharma company Wyeth claimed they couldn't make a replacement for technical reasons.
3) The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program says that epinephrine sucks and everyone should switch to albuterol inhalers for health reasons anyway.
4) Armstrong pharmaceuticals comes in and decides to make the HFA replacement starting in 2009.
4) The FDA originally planned for 2011 end date for the CFC version, but Armstrong asks it to be pushed to 2012, claiming that they will have a replacement in early 2011.
5) According to government records, Armstrong is currently doing clinical trials of the drug at the moment.
6) In a press release, Armstrong says the drug will not be released until after the ban. They encourage customers to stockpile current models until they can get their new drug on the market.
 
bicycleman said:
He prescribed one brand of inhaler, whose name I can't think of but it was powder and was contained inside a bullet shaped tube. It was an inhalant, but not the typical inhaler we have seen.
Click to expand...
May be wrong, but think the item described is Spiriva. Recommended dosage is once daily.
 
Redbeard said:
May be wrong, but think the item described is Spiriva. Recommended dosage is once daily.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't Spiriva, but it was set up, so that you never knew quite how many puffs you had left. You could shake it, and hear the powder within it and think you had more left, but you actually didn't. With Symbicort, you have an indicator on it, but you can't quite hear anything, whereas with Albuterol, you could hear it inside the tube if you shook the inhaler.

I might have an old container of that stuff. I will get back with you on what it was called.
 
rathi said:
The story is even more complicated that it looks at first glance. I'm starting to think this issue is more about incompetence rather than malice.

1) The FDA started its phaseout process in 2006. It was determined that there were no technical barriers to producing a HFA epinephrine replacement.
2) Pharma company Wyeth claimed they couldn't make a replacement for technical reasons.
3) The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program says that epinephrine sucks and everyone should switch to albuterol inhalers for health reasons anyway.
4) Armstrong pharmaceuticals comes in and decides to make the HFA replacement starting in 2009.
4) The FDA originally planned for 2011 end date for the CFC version, but Armstrong asks it to be pushed to 2012, claiming that they will have a replacement in early 2011.
5) According to government records, Armstrong is currently doing clinical trials of the drug at the moment.
6) In a press release, Armstrong says the drug will not be released until after the ban. They encourage customers to stockpile current models until they can get their new drug on the market.
Click to expand...

Since this seems to be the only medication really affected I might hazard a guess that it is the epinephrine that is causing the problem and since there are a lot of other reasons to restrict the sale - well that could be influencing a lot of this
 
bicycleman said:
No, it wasn't Spiriva, but it was set up, so that you never knew quite how many puffs you had left. You could shake it, and hear the powder within it and think you had more left, but you actually didn't. With Symbicort, you have an indicator on it, but you can't quite hear anything, whereas with Albuterol, you could hear it inside the tube if you shook the inhaler.

I might have an old container of that stuff. I will get back with you on what it was called.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me reply to myself. That stuff in the bullet type inhaler, that is a powder, is called Pulmicort, some very good stuff, but not as good as Symbicort.
 
Here's the latest I've heard about the situation.

Senator DeMint tried to attach a rider to the 2012 Farm Bill that would cut off any funding to enforce the ban on epinephrine inhalers.

But the Democrats shot it down last month.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Why are the Demoncrats so damned opposed to saving the lives of Americans?

WTF is their problem?
 
Last edited:
Redbeard said:
In this area,
Albuterol=$48.69
Advair=$321.69
Spiriva=$270.69
Prices may vary according to area.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even include the doctor visit.

And, you can't buy several of those at a time.
 
Muhammed said:
That doesn't even include the doctor visit.

And, you can't buy several of those at a time.
Click to expand...

Do you not have health care insurance?
 
Muhammed said:
Yes I do. But I don't see the relevance of your question. Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Well, most health insurance plans include either free primary care visits or relatively modest copays, and also include either free or discounted Rx, so I think it's perfectly relevant to question of your cost burden. It may be that the insurance-covered prescription inhalers end up being cheaper than the out-of-pocket, over-the-counter inhalers. At least it would be for me.
 
AdamT said:
Well, most health insurance plans include either free primary care visits or relatively modest copays, and also include either free or discounted Rx, so I think it's perfectly relevant to question of your cost burden. It may be that the insurance-covered prescription inhalers end up being cheaper than the out-of-pocket, over-the-counter inhalers. At least it would be for me.
Click to expand...

Yes, like nobody is actually having to pay the rest. As long as you don't have to pay it eh?
 
Manc Skipper said:
It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.

From wikipedia...

"...Letter from Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Senate:
"THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release December 21, 1987
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.
The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.
In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
Ronald Reagan The White House December 21, 1987" "
Click to expand...
Don't you dare utter the name of Ronald Reagan, you Reagan hater.
 
Redbeard said:
Are you not inhaling the propellant as well?

A url for the actual text of "The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer", not a condensed version in a newspaper or magazine article. One will noticed a "one liner" ---> 3. Aerosol products, except medical aerosols.

http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf

In this area,
Albuterol=$48.69
Advair=$321.69
Spiriva=$270.69
Prices may vary according to area.
Click to expand...

Right from Wikipedia:

There are a few exceptions for "essential uses", where no acceptable substitutes have been found (for example, in the metered dose inhalers commonly used to treat asthma and other respiratory problems[5])
Click to expand...

From the UN website:

http://ozone.unep.org/Exemption_Information/Essential_Use_Nominations/DecXV-5-USA.pdf
 
1Perry said:
Yes, like nobody is actually having to pay the rest. As long as you don't have to pay it eh?
Click to expand...

Oh I'm paying for it, in the form of ridiculous insurance premiums. And the insurance company is paying less than I would if I paid it on my own, as they have deals with the pharma companies.

I'd also add that you generally have to see a doc to get the original prescription, but he or she should specify that the prescription can be refilled x number of times, and they should renew it over the phone after that. If your doctor is making you come in for an appointment each time you need a refill then you need to find another doctor.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Oh I'm paying for it, in the form of ridiculous insurance premiums. And the insurance company is paying less than I would if I paid it on my own, as they have deals with the pharma companies.

I'd also add that you generally have to see a doc to get the original prescription, but he or she should specify that the prescription can be refilled x number of times, and they should renew it over the phone after that. If your doctor is making you come in for an appointment each time you need a refill then you need to find another doctor.
Click to expand...

Sure, but those refills are still costing everyone far more money, needlessly. Big Pharma strikes again.
 
Absolute laws don't work. I mean I can understand banning most uses of aerosol but there is no reason to not make an exception here.
 
AdamT said:
Oh I'm paying for it, in the form of ridiculous insurance premiums. And the insurance company is paying less than I would if I paid it on my own, as they have deals with the pharma companies.

I'd also add that you generally have to see a doc to get the original prescription, but he or she should specify that the prescription can be refilled x number of times, and they should renew it over the phone after that. If your doctor is making you come in for an appointment each time you need a refill then you need to find another doctor.
Click to expand...
As they say there is no such thing as a free lunch.

well... except for the UPS guy.

I tried that Abuterol stuff once and it didn't work. It just got me nauseous and made me vomit. I didn't want to puke on the carpet so ran to the front door, opened it and lost my lunch. It hit the concrete steps and splashed on the UPS guy.

The poor guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom