• 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!

A 100,000 percent increase in price

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In 2015, two small children of Rockford employees were treated with Acthar, a drug that's been on the market since 1952. It's used to treat a rare and potentially fatal condition called infantile spasms that afflicts about 2,000 babies a year.
Click to expand...

The drug works – it's considered the gold standard for infantile spasms. But as he discovered it wasn't always so expensive. In 2001, Acthar sold for about $40 a vial. Today: more than $40,000. An increase of 100,000 percent. He wanted to know how that could've happened. But for two years he kept running into a brick wall.
Click to expand...

Surely, there must be competition for a drug used since 1952, right? Well, yes, but:

To keep the price high, the FTC found that they did something else: they bought another drug that was Acthar's main competitor, a drug called Synacthen, that's been sold in Europe and Canada for years. For how much?
Don Haviland: Synacthen cost $33 in Canada. $33.
Lesley Stahl: The Acthar company bought the other drug?
Don Haviland: The competitive drug, yes. That's anti-trust, and that's why the Federal Trade Commission went after them. Because they took the only competitive product, paid a lot of money for it, and put it on the shelf.
Lesley Stahl: So they bought their only competitor, and then never sold it?
Don Haviland: Correct.
Click to expand...

And, once you have a monopoly, just expand the market:

We were able to find an old press release that said as much: the company was going to "...Expand our existing markets (and) find new therapeutic uses for Acthar." And so the company began to market the drug for several chronic conditions like rheumatoid arthritis that affect adults.
Dr. Peter Bach: What's shocking to me is half a billion dollars spent on this drug for seniors where there's no evidence that it's the right drug for any of them.
Click to expand...

But, it's the right one for the bottom line.

It turned out to be ineffective for RA, but cost Medicare some half billion dollars anyway.

There you have it: A perfect example of why medical care in the USA costs double and triple what it costs other nations. Just thought you might want to know.

Source: 60 minutes
 
Dittohead not! said:
Surely, there must be competition for a drug used since 1952, right? Well, yes, but:



And, once you have a monopoly, just expand the market:



But, it's the right one for the bottom line.

It turned out to be ineffective for RA, but cost Medicare some half billion dollars anyway.

There you have it: A perfect example of why medical care in the USA costs double and triple what it costs other nations. Just thought you might want to know.

Source: 60 minutes
Click to expand...

That's why monopolies are illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom