Price of insulin skyrockets, leaving diabetics with no recourse

We're going to end up with "single payer", eventually, bet on it, and this is just another example of why. The companies will have no one to blame but themselves. People who prattle on about charging "what the market will bear" are shortsighted and wearing blinders.

Price of insulin skyrockets, leaving diabetics with no recourse

Price of insulin skyrockets, leaving diabetics with no recourse | FOX31 Denver

Click to expand...

radcen said:

We're going to end up with "single payer", eventually, bet on it, and this is just another example of why. The companies will have no one to blame but themselves. People who prattle on about charging "what the market will bear" are shortsighted and wearing blinders.

Click to expand...

What stops the companies from charging whatever they want to that single payer?

Gonzo Rodeo said:

What stops the companies from charging whatever they want to that single payer?

Click to expand...

The bargaining power of buying drugs for 300 million people.

Winston said:

The bargaining power of buying drugs for 300 million people.

Click to expand...

That makes no difference if the company has either patent protection, or they are the sole provider for some other reason, or they have over half of market/manufacturing share/capacity.

radcen said:

We're going to end up with "single payer", eventually, bet on it, and this is just another example of why. The companies will have no one to blame but themselves. People who prattle on about charging "what the market will bear" are shortsighted and wearing blinders.

Click to expand...

That's not very sweet of them.

Winston said:

The bargaining power of buying drugs for 300 million people.

Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:

That makes no difference if the company has either patent protection, or they are the sole provider, or they have over half of market/manufacturing capacity.

Click to expand...

^This.

If only one provider has the legal right to provide, what gives the government the legal right to demand a price it wants? I suppose the government could simply say, "I guess we just won't buy that for people at that price," to which I say, how is that different than the drug being to expensive for people to buy?

Beaudreaux said:

That makes no difference if the company has either patent protection, or they are the sole provider, or they have over half of market/manufacturing capacity.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. It's like collective bargaining. They need us just as much as we need them. We get the prices we want. Otherwise who else are they going to sell drugs to? We already get ripped off paying the highest drug prices in the world. No one else is going to pay top dollar for generic brand RX they get from their single-payer system for free at half the cost.

I didn't have time to read the article. What was the reason for the price increase?

Winston said:

I beg to differ. It's like collective bargaining. They need us just as much as we need them. We get the prices we want. Otherwise who else are they going to sell drugs to? We already get ripped off paying the highest drug prices in the world. No one else is going to pay top dollar for generic brand RX they get from their single-payer system for free at half the cost.

Click to expand...

Why would that be different than now then?

calamity said:

I didn't have time to read the article. What was the reason for the price increase?

Click to expand...

Greed

Henrin said:

Why would that be different than now then?

Click to expand...

Because private insurance companies don't have the purchasing power of Medicare.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

^This.

If only one provider has the legal right to provide, what gives the government the legal right to demand a price it wants? I suppose the government could simply say, "I guess we just won't buy that for people at that price," to which I say, how is that different than the drug being to expensive for people to buy?

Click to expand...

Why then are the Canadians able to buy the same drugs for much less than Americans? It would seem a smaller nation would be able to exert less pressure on a manufacturer than the US govt.

Here's a story from a TV station in Buffalo NY -

Accessing ‘The Canadian Remedy'

IN OUR STORY “THE CANADIAN REMEDY”, WE SHOWED YOU IT’S POSSIBLE TO SAVE HUNDREDS, EVEN THOUSANDS A YEAR BY PURCHASING (IN-PERSON) YOUR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS IN CANADA. AND IT’S LEGAL FOR YOU TO BRING THEM BACK TO THE U.S.

-Some medications requiring a prescription in the U.S. are available over-the-counter in Canada. You can purchase both EpiPens® and insulin without a prescription in Canada. The savings can be huge.

EpiPens® go for about $100 in Canada. In the U.S., they’re typically around $300.

Insulin is also much, much cheaper. Through the website GoodRx.com, we found the full retail price of Humalog® at more than $500 for a five-pack of injector pens. The very same drug in Canada costs less than $60.

Click to expand...

I do wonder if the American Big Pharma lobbyists will be pushing for new regulations which would prohibit bringing Canadian prescription drugs back into the states.

Winston said:

Because private insurance companies don't have the purchasing power of Medicare.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that mean that prices would be higher?

Winston said:

I beg to differ. It's like collective bargaining. They need us just as much as we need them. We get the prices we want. Otherwise who else are they going to sell drugs to? We already get ripped off paying the highest drug prices in the world. No one else is going to pay top dollar for generic brand RX they get from their single-payer system for free at half the cost.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but it's not even close to being like collective bargaining when one or more of three scenarios I listed exist. And, those scenarios exist more often than you may imagine.

What you're advocating is government price controls, and/or price fixing. In every single instance where the government has done that -- transportation, energy, etc.. -- the government eventually rescinded said price controls because they almost KILLED the commercial sector that they tried to control. This would be no different. In fact, it may even become harmful more quickly, due to the ancillary costs of the pharmaceutical industry that exist such as R&D costs, oppressive government regulations, legal liabilities due to blood sucking lawyers and their lawsuits, and so on.

What we could end up doing, is killing the most productive, most advanced, most technologically capable pharmaceutical sector in the entire world - the US sector.

That concerns me.

Beaudreaux said:

That's not very sweet of them.

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

Wouldn't that mean that prices would be higher?

Click to expand...

Gonzo Rodeo said:

What stops the companies from charging whatever they want to that single payer?

Click to expand...

Say you sell apples in a society of 100 people. Those 100 people are split into 5 groups of 20. Groups A,B,C,D, and E. If you sell your apples at 10 dollars a bushel and group A decides not to buy from you because your prices are too high. Groups B,C,D, and E keep you in business. As long as you can still charge 10 dollars a bushel to one of the groups, you can stay in business.

What happens when all 100 people band together to form one group A? Who else are you going to sell your apples to if no one from group A is buying?

None your apples will rot.

Somerville said:

Why then are the Canadians able to buy the same drugs for much less than Americans? It would seem a smaller nation would be able to exert less pressure on a manufacturer than the US govt.

Here's a story from a TV station in Buffalo NY -

I do wonder if the American Big Pharma lobbyists will be pushing for new regulations which would prohibit bringing Canadian prescription drugs back into the states.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised they haven't had that made illegal already.

Protectionism, IMO, is really the biggest culprit. The free market advocates are wrong. We don't have a free market, we have a protectionist market, and that gives companies almost carte blanche to raise prices. Eliminate the protectionism and much of that would be fixed, then maybe we wouldn't need to go draconian.

Beaudreaux said:

I see what you're saying, but it's not even close to being like collective bargaining when one or more of three scenarios I listed exist. And, those scenarios exist more often than you may imagine.

What you're advocating is government price controls, and/or price fixing. In every single instance where the government has done that -- transportation, energy, etc.. -- the government eventually rescinded said price controls because they almost KILLED the commercial sector that they tried to control. This would be no different. In fact, it may even become harmful more quickly, due to the ancillary costs of the pharmaceutical industry that exist such as R&D costs, oppressive government regulations, legal liabilities due to blood sucking lawyers and their lawsuits, and so on.

What we could end up doing, is killing the most productive, most advanced, most technologically capable pharmaceutical sector in the entire world - the US sector.

That concerns me.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your dynamic analysis of the issue. But, I still feel like single-payer is the way to go.

Winston said:

I appreciate your dynamic analysis of the issue. But, I still feel like single-payer is the way to go.

Click to expand...

No problem. That's why we all come to a debate site on the internet, because if we all thought the same way we dang sure wouldn't be here.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

^This.

If only one provider has the legal right to provide, what gives the government the legal right to demand a price it wants? I suppose the government could simply say, "I guess we just won't buy that for people at that price," to which I say, how is that different than the drug being to expensive for people to buy?

Click to expand...

The government grants them patent rights, if the government decides not to enforce them who will?

Beaudreaux said:

That makes no difference if the company has either patent protection, or they are the sole provider for some other reason, or they have over half of market/manufacturing share/capacity.

Click to expand...

Why is insulin even patented? that drug has been around for decades, if it is patented still that's the problem. the easiest solution is to say that after a certain number of years the patent dies and it's an open market for making the drug.

EMNofSeattle said:

Why is insulin even patented? that drug has been around for decades, if it is patented still that's the problem. the easiest solution is to say that after a certain number of years the patent dies and it's an open market for making the drug.

Click to expand...

There's lots of things that could be patented -- the delivery system, the dosage measurement system, a preservative that extends the shelf life without effecting potency, etc.

Build a better mouse trap, and you get to patent it.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

What stops the companies from charging whatever they want to that single payer?

Click to expand...

Single payer forces real competition.

Without regulation and collective bargaining, there is no true competition in a market like medicine. All people have bodies, all bodies degrade over time, and we have no choice but to buy healthcare. That means that if all the companies making insulin just agree to simultaneously jack up their prices, there's nothing anyone can do about it, and all of them will make money, because diabetics have no choice but to keep buying the insulin, even if it means selling everything they own.

In single payer healthcare, the government assumes the role of the buyer, and unlike people, governments don't have bodies. The government can say no to a price given by one company, and then go to the next and say, "company A gave me X price. Not good enough. So what's your offer?" And they can do this as many times as they want, since unlike people, the government doesn't die if it doesn't get its insulin. It can take its time doing the switch-over to public option, and keep haggling with drug companies in the mean time.

That's how. Competition can only happen when the buyer has choices. Using the government as the buyer creates that choice, which is often absent when you're talking about individuals for whom medicine is a mater of life and death.

Here in the UK, all prescriptions cost about £8. Doesn't matter what drug it is. It costs £8.

Because the truth is, no pill really costs that much more than any other. It's just automated factory work. The real cost of drugs is in the R&R, not the production, and the procedure for approval is the same for all drugs.

Beaudreaux said:

There's lots of things that could be patented -- the delivery system, the dosage measurement system, a preservative that extends the shelf life without effecting potency, etc.

Build a better mouse trap, and you get to patent it.

Click to expand...

I strongly doubt the delivery system costs 3000 dollars for ten vials.

the cost of the insulin should be going down, this is not a new out of the lab drug that works miracles, this has been available to the public for over half a century now. it should be cheap as dirt.

EMNofSeattle said:

I strongly doubt the delivery system costs 3000 dollars for ten vials.

the cost of the insulin should be going down, this is not a new out of the lab drug that works miracles, this has been available to the public for over half a century now. it should be cheap as dirt.

Click to expand...

I wasn't defending any particular case or instance when I posted the information you responded to, nor was I in my response to you because I was just discussing what you had said to me specifically. What I said originally about factors that impact price, and the fact that there are some drugs that are unjustly and indefensibly overpriced by certain companies, are not mutually exclusive. However, to say that the government can control pricing of anything without adverse impact, which is what I was originally responding to, is not a sustainable position as the posts in this thread calling for single-payer were implying that it would be.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

(deleted)
Because the truth is, no pill really costs that much more than any other. It's just automated factory work. The real cost of drugs is in the R&R, not the production, and the procedure for approval is the same for all drugs.

Click to expand...

I believe you meant R&D (research and development)

Here's the funny response - funny because it comes from the Trumpian acolyte, Alex Jones, so it must be true. The President trusts Mr Jones to always be correct

PHARMA COMPANIES SPEND 19X MORE ON MARKETING THAN RESEARCH, AND RETURNS ARE DROPPING

As we previously reported, pharmaceutical companies spend more money on marketing drugs than research and development. Johnson & Johnson for example recently spent $17.5 billion on marketing and only $8.2 billion on research and development. Similarly Pfizer spent $11.4 billion on marketing and only $6.6 billion on research and development. [2]

Deloitte’s research into a total of 12 pharmaceutical companies’ R&D expenditures for the previous year is telling, even though the comparatively small amount of money spent on R&D isn’t paying off for Big Pharma like it used to.
(. . .)
it seems that it is more profitable for the company to create variations of products that are already on the market.

Click to expand...

A more rational article on the matter may be found at the Washington Post: Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research Although the drugs are sold in many nations, the vast majority of marketing expenditures are in America, as most developed nations don't allow drug companies to advertise in mass media or to pay physicians to use their products.