• 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!

Marathon pharma - price gouging to the extreme

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,549
Reaction score
28,897
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Heres an interesting story that will make headlines over the next few days, once the big media sources pick it up.

Basically, a small pharma company did a few studies on an old existing drug to get approval for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a very rare disease.

They submitted to the FDA, and got priority review (fast track approval), seven years of exclusivity, and now want to raise the price of the drug from pennies (the generic version) to a branded version costing $84k/yr.


A good overview is here:
The Case of Marathon Pharmaceuticals | In the Pipeline
and
Marathon halts launch of DMD drug as $89K price attracts congressional heat | FiercePharma

and it looks like Bernie Sanders and Elijah Cummings complaints have driven the price down by half in one day.

But the investment the company made (possibly 10-40 MM dollars?) should not be resulting in this kind of price hike. It also gives all of pharma a big black eye, when a distintion needs to be made between companies like Marathon and actual pharma companies that discover new drugs and develop them to bring to market.

As Lowe says:

And (the FDA is) also allowing the likes of Marathon to make the rest of the drug industry look like greedy sociopaths. Marathon, Catalyst, T*ring and all the rest of the people who are pulling these tricks have the word “Pharmaceuticals” in their name, but they are not drug companies. They discover nothing. They do no research. They take virtually no risks. They exist only to play legal games and watch the money roll in.
Click to expand...
This is a regulatory issue, and I dont have much hope that the Trump Administration will deal with it competently.
 
Threegoofs said:
Heres an interesting story that will make headlines over the next few days, once the big media sources pick it up.

Basically, a small pharma company did a few studies on an old existing drug to get approval for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a very rare disease.

They submitted to the FDA, and got priority review (fast track approval), seven years of exclusivity, and now want to raise the price of the drug from pennies (the generic version) to a branded version costing $84k/yr.


A good overview is here:
The Case of Marathon Pharmaceuticals | In the Pipeline
and
Marathon halts launch of DMD drug as $89K price attracts congressional heat | FiercePharma

and it looks like Bernie Sanders and Elijah Cummings complaints have driven the price down by half in one day.

But the investment the company made (possibly 10-40 MM dollars?) should not be resulting in this kind of price hike. It also gives all of pharma a big black eye, when a distintion needs to be made between companies like Marathon and actual pharma companies that discover new drugs and develop them to bring to market.

As Lowe says:


This is a regulatory issue, and I dont have much hope that the Trump Administration will deal with it competently.
Click to expand...

If the company is given full liability immunity from legal harm should there be any unforeseen medical harm from the new use of the drug then they should be required to sell it for pennies as the OP says. If not, then they should be allowed to price the drug at a level at which they feel would cover any unforeseen costs of unforeseen harm that may come from any legal liability in lawsuits filed by those TV advertising lawyers like the one that has the phone number 1-800-Bad-Drug.

Other than that, I agree.
 
Not a simple issue to address. Many facets.

No one wants to see gouging. But we all want those new miracle drugs on the horizon. Which cost a boatload of time am money to develop. For any given drug how much is too much to charge?? This particular medicine Sander is going after has a relatively small patient audience so the volume of sales is going to be low. What is the appropriate return on investment? Can't price/sell it the same way you would a mass market item.

Some have pointed out the semi-absurd amounts of money drug companies spend on advertising new products. Guess the manufacturer has calculated that expense is a good decision, but marketing sometimes exceeds the cost of development of new products.

No simple answers.
 
With Tom Price as the Secretary of HHS.. I'm not sure what side he's going to take.

I can't find any info of Marathon contributing to his congress campaigns. What I found points to them lobbying more influence in the Democratic party. They contributed directly to Chuck Schumer's campaign. They bought stake in two other PACs including.. drumroll please... the PODESTA group.

Tom Price was just confirmed at the HHS and the ball will be in his court.
 
Last edited:
pragmatic said:
Not a simple issue to address. Many facets.

No one wants to see gouging. But we all want those new miracle drugs on the horizon. Which cost a boatload of time am money to develop. For any given drug how much is too much to charge?? This particular medicine Sander is going after has a relatively small patient audience so the volume of sales is going to be low. What is the appropriate return on investment? Can't price/sell it the same way you would a mass market item.

Some have pointed out the semi-absurd amounts of money drug companies spend on advertising new products. Guess the manufacturer has calculated that expense is a good decision, but marketing sometimes exceeds the cost of development of new products.

No simple answers.
Click to expand...

There are no simple answers...but not for the reasons you describe.

This is not a miracle drug. It's an established drug that has just had some minimal studies done. It gives no incentive to other companies to research and develop new drugs... just to milk the system and fleece consumers.
 
Winston said:
With Tom Price as the Secretary of HHS.. I'm not sure what side he's going to take.

I can't find any info of Marathon contributing to his congress campaigns. What I found points to them lobbying more influence in the Democratic party. They contributed directly to Chuck Schumer's campaign. They bought stake in two other PACs including.. drumroll please... the PODESTA group.

Tom Price was just confirmed at the HHS and the ball will be in his court.
Click to expand...

Tom Price is not that critical here....watch for the new FDA head.

Rumor is, Trump might appoint some nutjob Peter Theil recommended. It looks like he'll ensure snake oil approvals will be the standard practice at the FDA.
 
Threegoofs said:
Tom Price is not that critical here....watch for the new FDA head.

Rumor is, Trump might appoint some nutjob Peter Theil recommended. It looks like he'll ensure snake oil approvals will be the standard practice at the FDA.
Click to expand...

Ugh, Peter Thiel is a jack***. Of course Trump would listen to Peter Thiel's counsel. Of course. He's like the apple of Trump's eye. 20 years younger. Billionaire libertarian. Let's go blow our tax breaks together at Mar-A-Lago and talk shop on the FDA... ugh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom