|
Quoted:
bullshit. how much for new livers? how much for treatment now? if the majority don't even know it, than it will be pretty cheap to treat them, won't it? Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/24/the-drug-thats-forcing-americas-most-important-and-uncomfortable-health-care-debate/?hpid=z1 Threatens to bust the budgets of Medicaid. This is why I say having insurance to most people is more like having a winning lottery ticket. 3 million have it (chronic Hep. C) but the majority don't even know it. bullshit. how much for new livers? how much for treatment now? if the majority don't even know it, than it will be pretty cheap to treat them, won't it? Rx drug budgets are also enjoying billions in savings from hugely successful products that are newly generic. If we want cures, they will be expensive. Sovaldi is the best advancement against standard of care in years in virtually any disease. With that being the case, it's a bargain. No everyone can afford everything. |
|
Quoted:
So let me get this straight....you're saying that blatant and open price discrimination is a good thing and should be the norm. OK, got it. You're also saying that even if taxpayer money is used in the development of this drug, that it is still OK to let a private entity ass rape the citizens who footed at least some part of the bill for its existence while selling it at a major loss abroad to those who had no skin in the game. And you're saying that anyone who is against such practices is a socialist. Allrighty then. ETA Is it fair then to assume that you also think that the .gov should not be allowed to use the weight of its purchasing power to bargain with the drug makers as to a given drug's price point? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember the article. The company rep was answering questions about the drug. When asked why it cost so much, the rep stated that it was because it was what they could get. Funny how we get upset over profiteering in disasters, but profiteering in the medical field is good business. I suppose you'd be happier if they never developed the drug in the first place, right? It's their product, they ought to be able to charge whatever they want. Keep in mind that before they developed it, this treatment did not exist. The investors in that company risked some number of billions to develop this drug, they ought to reap the rewards. They could have just as easily lost their ass if things didn't pan out. Of course now that things worked out, you want their creation cheap and easy huh? It's not likely you would have had your wallet out to make investors whole if things had gone the other way. This is our system working. In 20 years after their patent expires and their costs are recouped, you'll see generics hit the market at a much more affordable rate. 20 years is the price you pay to the get very best minds working on new drugs that have the potential to save lives. It's a good deal for society if you've got the vision to see past your nose. You'd never see a drug like this developed in a socialist country. I guess the plus side is that you wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of some company "overcharging" you for a life saving treatment.  You're right, they ought to be able to charge whatever they want. But only to a point. They should NOT be allowed to GOUGE the ever lovin piss out of some and damn near give it to others. We're not talkin about a gallon of gas here, this is life altering and in many cases, life saving medicine. I'd also like to know if there was any .gov grant money anywhere in the development of it. If so, then the whole thing is bullshit because if American taxpayers footed any of the bill for it, well, I'll just leave it there. The above ^^^ is why we have Obamacare. Your average person wants socialized medicine. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile So let me get this straight....you're saying that blatant and open price discrimination is a good thing and should be the norm. OK, got it. You're also saying that even if taxpayer money is used in the development of this drug, that it is still OK to let a private entity ass rape the citizens who footed at least some part of the bill for its existence while selling it at a major loss abroad to those who had no skin in the game. And you're saying that anyone who is against such practices is a socialist. Allrighty then. ETA Is it fair then to assume that you also think that the .gov should not be allowed to use the weight of its purchasing power to bargain with the drug makers as to a given drug's price point? Now you're sounding like Elizabeth Warren and Obama: "You didn't develop that drug!" Private citizens have "purchasing power". The federal government extorts drug companies. I can't revoke a drug company's licensing or sic the IRS dogs on them. The federal government can. That doesn't mean drug companies are pure as the driven snow, but if you want to kill innovation then threaten the profits of drug companies' new drugs. If the federal government wasn't balls deep into health care as it is now, the drug would be sold for what the market would bear ie. what your average blue-collar worker could afford, just like DVD's in the discount bin at Walmart cost $5. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Rx drug budgets are also enjoying billions in savings from hugely successful products that are newly generic. If we want cures, they will be expensive. Sovaldi is the best advancement against standard of care in years in virtually any disease. With that being the case, it's a bargain. No everyone can afford everything. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/24/the-drug-thats-forcing-americas-most-important-and-uncomfortable-health-care-debate/?hpid=z1 Threatens to bust the budgets of Medicaid. This is why I say having insurance to most people is more like having a winning lottery ticket. 3 million have it (chronic Hep. C) but the majority don't even know it. bullshit. how much for new livers? how much for treatment now? if the majority don't even know it, than it will be pretty cheap to treat them, won't it? Rx drug budgets are also enjoying billions in savings from hugely successful products that are newly generic. If we want cures, they will be expensive. Sovaldi is the best advancement against standard of care in years in virtually any disease. With that being the case, it's a bargain. No everyone can afford everything. And the only reason the drug companies will charge what they do is because they know that the government has bottomless pockets in the form of borrowed money against the taxpayer. It's a simple business decision. If you know someone can pay X, you won't charge X - $5, you will charge X. This is yet another example of our society not holding someone responsible for their actions. The vast majority of Hep C patients are current or former IV drug addicts. If Medicaid pays to cure them, "Hurray, I can go back to using IV drugs!" Lather, rinse, repeat. This is the reason New Hampshire doesn't pay for alcohol rehab. The recidivism rate was so high it simply wasn't worth it. "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit) 
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. |
|
Quoted:
Care to take bets on how many ged up in gov red tape due to greasing pockets to prevent said competition? Quoted:
Quoted:
There are about 10 more in Phase III trials right now, with several showing >90% cure rates. Competition will bring those prices down in short order. Care to take bets on how many ged up in gov red tape due to greasing pockets to prevent said competition? These will be fast tracked because of the sovaldi pricing controversy. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
...snip... Winner! Socialized countries sit on the backs of the US Health Care market. Not to mention that while George Lucas gets royalties for Star Wars for HIS ENTIRE LIFE PLUS (something like) 90 YEARS AFTER DEATH but Glaxxo only gets 7 years to make money off their life-saving drugs that puts a big amount of profit up front instead of the course of the life of a product. Exactly! Who the fuck decided that the unwashed masses get to steal all Glaxxo's shit after only 7 20 years?! Actually, fuck Glaxxo! They designed that drug by stealing the intellectual property that allowed them to understand how the virus worked in the first place! Some scientist making 60k a year and begging for grants should be getting a royalty of $700 per pill that Glaxxo sells! Actually, fuck that scientist! He figured out those mechanisms by stealing the intellectual property of .... therefor, the descendants of Prometheus should be getting 87% of all profits. Y'all are a bunch of thieving scum. |
|
Quoted:
These will be fast tracked because of the sovaldi pricing controversy. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are about 10 more in Phase III trials right now, with several showing >90% cure rates. Competition will bring those prices down in short order. Care to take bets on how many ged up in gov red tape due to greasing pockets to prevent said competition? These will be fast tracked because of the sovaldi pricing controversy. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile If they grease the right palms. The worst part of this is that after all the time, effort and money these companies spend developing drugs that cure diseases and save lives, they get a relatively limited time to profit on patent, after which manufacturers in india dominate the generic market. Contrast that to our copyright law in which any idiot can pen a ditty that stays under copyright for what, a hundred years or something? |
|
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. |
|
Quoted:
Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. Quoted:
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. 
|
|
Quoted:
So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. OK Dr. Lexus. |
|
Quoted:
...snip... So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it. But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are about 10 more in Phase III trials right now, with several showing >90% cure rates. Competition will bring those prices down in short order. Care to take bets on how many ged up in gov red tape due to greasing pockets to prevent said competition? These will be fast tracked because of the sovaldi pricing controversy. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile no, the feds hate this drug and want competitors on the market asap. the health insurance industry's trade group is getting in the game of demonizing this too: http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2014/07/21/youre-paying-for-sovaldi/ Whether you realize it or not. And it’s not cheap. An article published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association by two senior officers at CVS Caremark, puts in stark terms the cost that we are all bearing from the price being charge for Hepatitis C (HVC) drug Sovaldi. Sovaldi is a breakthrough treatment that gives us hope we can finally eradicate Hepatitis C, a terrible disease affecting three to five million Americans. But when you combine this enormous patient population with the astronomical price for the drug – $1,000 per pill – it’s a recipe for unsustainable costs. “The simple math,” the authors write, “is that treatment of patients with HCV could add $200 to $300 per year to every insured American’s health insurance premium for each of the next 5 years.” $200 to $300 per year, for everyone with insurance. To treat just one disease. This data follows another recent report that found seniors on Medicare Part D could be facing premiums 8% higher than otherwise due to the high price of Sovaldi. As we have seen, this pricing threatens access to the drug for people who need it the most. We all want people to have access to the best treatments available – but achieving this access is going to require drugmakers to accept that we need sustainable drug pricing. Because this challenge isn’t isolated to HVC – it’s much broader, and it’s growing. As the piece sums up, “this is not an isolated phenomenon; other expensive specialty medications are in development, many with large potential pools of targeted patients. Effective approaches to control costs for high-priced medications need to be developed and evaluated to ensure broad, equitable, and appropriate use of these new interventions in an already stressed health care system.” some above have mentioned possible savings of a course of treatment of these drugs vs. future transplants and other problems. I don't think that savings is a clear cut as the drug maker claims. a good series of blog posts on the topic (bloggers are lefties): http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/treating-hepatitis-c-introduction-and-background/ |
|
Quoted:
That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it. But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. Quoted:
Quoted:
...snip... So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it. But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. So cut out the .gov money. Don't add another wrong by price fixing. |
|
Quoted:
That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it.]But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. Quoted:
Quoted:
...snip... So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it.]But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. Not knowing this for a fact, it does seem a definite possibility and in some cases, I imagine it is a fact. One might ask why .gov would condone or even allow such a situation. That's what K Street in D.C is for. 
|
|
Quoted:
That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it. But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. Quoted:
That is the irony of this thread. 99.99% of the research to develop Sovaldi (and every other drug) was done using US tax dollars (well, ok, maybe a little from germany and france too). And then more tax dollars pay for the violence used to prevent competition. Did the developers of Sovaldi do something new and innovative? Sounds like it. But they sure as shit didn't do it in a vacuum, using only information they themselves divined. Can you back up those statistics? Sources? Should Apple not be granted a patent on their products...because they're based on information on electricity from the ancient Egyptians all the way up to Ben Franklin? From Forbes: [Pharma companies have traditionally funded their internal R&D efforts totally on their own by investing 15% or more of their top line revenues to pay for these endeavors. In addition, in order to tap into R&D going on outside their companies, pharma has financially supported external R&D efforts in deals with small biotech companies, research institutes, and universities. In fact, as funding for agencies like the NIH has stagnated over recent years, pharma has become an important source of funds to support early stage research.
Despite R&D budgets in the billions of dollars, pharma is now seeking to supplement their internal R&D investments with outside funding. One source has been major foundations. The recent Cystic Fibrosis Foundation investment of $58 million into Pfizer R&D to support new research into areas for this disease is a perfect example. The justification for such deals is that pharma companies have a proven R&D track record for delivering new medicines, and the foundations feel that, by tapping into these scientists, they can maximize their chances for getting breakthrough medications. Now Pharma has found a new investor for its R&D efforts – the U.S. government. In what is being hailed as the a “first-of-its-kind” collaboration, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has entered into a potential $200 million antibiotics pact with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a division of Health & Human Services (HHS), to develop drugs to fight antibiotic resistance and bioterrorism. HHS will provide $40 million for the first 18 months of the deal to develop several antibiotics in the GSK portfolio. The work will be monitored by a joint BARDA-GSK committee and, if warranted, the agreement can be renewed with HHS providing additional funding of up to a total of $200 million over 5 years. For HHS, this is a way to stimulate R&D into two areas of major medical need that are crying out for new drugs. For GSK, it is a way to “provide flexibility to move funding around GSK’s antibacterial portfolio, rather than focusing on just one drug candidate.” Perhaps David Payne, head of GSK’s antibacterial discovery group, spoke for both parties when he stated that “innovative public-private partnerships are integral to solving this critical healthcare issue.” That foundations and now the U.S. Government are investing in pharma companies is a testament to the scientists and capabilities these organizations have. It may also reflect a decrease in confidence in universities and research institutes, the traditional receiver of such funds to deliver new drugs in a timely manner. Yes, basic research is often funded by the government...but then that research is readily available to anyone...and the Pharmaceutical companies are able to expand on that info....and then they fund their own R & D for specific drugs, pay for 75% of all clinical trials...and if you notice the above 'collaboration' efforts are for low profit, low volume drugs...to treat things like Cystic Fibrosis or new Antibiotic (limited time use) production....not big profit makers for the Drug Companies. That information is also readily available to everyone...., so "Kelone, Inc." could be formed to make new drugs...if you're willing to spend the time, money and deal with the regulatory hassles...the same way any other company can. |
|
Quoted:
Right on Fuck it and buy them from egypt Quoted:
Quoted:
Our drug market is NOT a free market. The government won't let me shop elsewhere for my drugs. If there was an actual free market, price differences like this wouldn't last for a day. Right on Fuck it and buy them from egypt Good luck suing the drug company in Egypt.....
As I mentioned earlier...there are many factors causing the higher cost of drugs in the US....including liablity... Here's a Law Firm Website seeking plantiffs to sue the makers of Lipitor (and other Statins). Now here's a quote from a relatively recent study about Statins and Diabetes: The current study suggests that the risk of developing diabetes is limited to patients who are already at high risk. The minor increase in blood glucose with statins may be enough to push at-risk patients across the diagnostic threshold. Here's another quote concerning the use of Statins: Experts say the evidence as a whole suggests that the risks are slight and that for most women who take statins, the benefits for preventing heart attack and stroke outweigh those risks. |
|
Quoted:
so its wrong for a company to set a price for its product. da comrade!!! Forward! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because thats what the company is selling it for. How much should it be? Here is the thing. You can't argue that the company should be able to sell it for what ever price they want when the US medical system is a clusterfuck of government subsidies and regulations. Yes you can. Two wrongs don't make a right. so its wrong for a company to set a price for its product. da comrade!!! Forward! So Egypt gets it for 900. We get it for 84,000. Same drug. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound familiar? |
|
Quoted:
So Egypt gets it for 900. We get it for 84,000. Same drug. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound familiar? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because thats what the company is selling it for. How much should it be? Here is the thing. You can't argue that the company should be able to sell it for what ever price they want when the US medical system is a clusterfuck of government subsidies and regulations. Yes you can. Two wrongs don't make a right. so its wrong for a company to set a price for its product. da comrade!!! Forward! So Egypt gets it for 900. We get it for 84,000. Same drug. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound familiar? That is an absolutely bizarre statement. |
|
Quoted:
They already do via Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates There is very little free market economics in pharmaceuticals. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Profiteering on the back of the US taxpayer.
You are approaching this argument like the US is a free market capitalist country. We aren't. So the US government should set the price for medicine? There is very little free market economics in pharmaceuticals. Those reimbursement rates are usually a percentage of AWP. Thus, an absurdly high AWP of $86k. They are expecting it to be capped. |
|
Quoted:
So Egypt gets it for 900. We get it for 84,000. Same drug. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound familiar? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because thats what the company is selling it for. How much should it be? Here is the thing. You can't argue that the company should be able to sell it for what ever price they want when the US medical system is a clusterfuck of government subsidies and regulations. Yes you can. Two wrongs don't make a right. so its wrong for a company to set a price for its product. da comrade!!! Forward! So Egypt gets it for 900. We get it for 84,000. Same drug. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound familiar? As people have posted here, Egypt will either offer a patent or not. $900 for the patented medicine. $.00 to Gilead if they don't agree to price/patent deal as the pharmaceutical companies in Egypt will just reverse engineer it. |
|
Quoted:
..snip... That information is also readily available to everyone...., so "Kelone, Inc." could be formed to make new drugs...if you're willing to spend the time, money and deal with the regulatory hassles...the same way any other company can. Yes, so then someone can come along and say "thanks for all the time and money doing the research for me. Now I've developed some new widget using that information, and I will imprison anyone who does the same. I've got to protect my your investment after all!" The fundamental problem is that not every idea is patentable (by social/legal convention, since that is all patents are) . But for some reason, every 'drug' should be patentable? Why is that? Some post-doc discovers a new pathway and publishes it. Then others use that hard won information to exploit the pathway to solve some problem. That is great, science doesn't do anyone any good until it is put to use. But why should it be the drug developer that gets a .gov enforced monopoly, and not the post-doc? There may be a good argument for why it ought to be that way, but it certainly is just an accident of history that we arrived at that arrangement. If we did significantly reduced the prize we give for drug development, drug development under the current arrangement would very likely suffer. Can drugs only be developed under the current arrangement? Certainly not. Is the current arrangement the best way to achieve our goal (which is what?) - extremely doubtful - as we arrived at it by happenstance. Sadly, we can't advocate it under the magical umbrella of 'yeah, free market, bitch!' - because it is one of the least free markets in the US. |
|
One quick thought, I don't believe that insurance companies should be able to drop people due to new disease or not accept a person from another insurance company (I.e. you changed jobs and are now new to that insurance company). I realize that will make insurance more costly (as it is now currently doing).
That being said. I pay for insurance, it is not given to me freely. If you are on Medicaid (I.e. You can't afford health insurance) you aren't paying for insurance. You are living off the backs of other people. You shouldn't be entitled to the latest and greatest. When a generic becomes available you can get it, til then sorry but you should have bought insurance. If you aren't a productive member of society and are leaching off society, what is the benefit to society to prolong your life at exorbitant cost? What, so society can pay for your poor life choices even longer (as you are most likely taking up other government resources as well)? I don't know how you relate that to Medicare. |
|
Quoted:
One quick thought, I don't believe that insurance companies should be able to drop people due to new disease or not accept a person from another insurance company (I.e. you changed jobs and are now new to that insurance company). I realize that will make insurance more costly (as it is now currently doing). Excellent. I should be able to get auto insurance AFTER the accident, too. |
|
Quoted:
OK Dr. Lexus. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. OK Dr. Lexus. 
"Don't worry Scro', there's plenty of 'tards livin' kick-ass lives." |
|
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. As you point out, it's a complex problem. I do not think that they are selling at a "loss" in real numbers when you consider the whole picture. At the very least, they are likely making single digit % profits and getting their patent in the foreign country. There is also likely an agreement that the drug cannot leave their country to come to the U.S. There is also a lot of altruism but it's kind of fucked up. Just as an example off the top of my head, if one of my patients does not have any health insurance, I can get a drug for, say, Multiple Sclerosis, at no charge through programs with the drug company that manufactures it. We're talking $5,000 per month at no charge. It's very interesting when insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, comes into the picture. Now you have to try certain drugs before others, as well as pay co-pays and meet your deductible, etc. Drugs can be entirely denied by the insurance company. Since the patient has insurance, they are not eligible for free medications from the drug companies assistance programs. Cost between drugs? Not surprisingly, the drugs all cost about the same ie. what the market will bear, even between drugs that came out 20+ years ago and one that came out last year. It would be very interesting to see what they would cost if no one had insurance. A lot of them may not have been developed, but who knows. Usually when there is a demand there will be a supply. What I object to is more involvement by the government. Every time that happens they virtually always make the situation worse. |
|
Quoted:
So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. You're not ignorant, but you yourself have pointed out the very complex picture that is health care in the U.S. Drug companies are not evil, but they are companies. They will do whatever the law allows. There is no Medicaid equivalent in Egypt so they can only charge what the market will bear. You can't pick *one* aspect of our system and choose to scrutinize it without looking at the rest of it. Socialized medicine will not solve any of these problems but in fact make them worse. I grew up in Canada and saw it first-hand. But Americans are going to learn that the hard way. Here's another point: There is no such thing as a free lunch. My father practiced medicine in communist Hungary before escaping to Canada. You had to bribe the doctors and nurses to get good care. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, so then someone can come along and say "thanks for all the time and money doing the research for me. Now I've developed some new widget using that information, and I will imprison anyone who does the same. I've got to protect my your investment after all!" The fundamental problem is that not every idea is patentable (by social/legal convention, since that is all patents are) . But for some reason, every 'drug' should be patentable? Why is that? Some post-doc discovers a new pathway and publishes it. Then others use that hard won information to exploit the pathway to solve some problem. That is great, science doesn't do anyone any good until it is put to use. But why should it be the drug developer that gets a .gov enforced monopoly, and not the post-doc? There may be a good argument for why it ought to be that way, but it certainly is just an accident of history that we arrived at that arrangement. If we did significantly reduced the prize we give for drug development, drug development under the current arrangement would very likely suffer. Can drugs only be developed under the current arrangement? Certainly not. Is the current arrangement the best way to achieve our goal (which is what?) - extremely doubtful - as we arrived at it by happenstance. Sadly, we can't advocate it under the magical umbrella of 'yeah, free market, bitch!' - because it is one of the least free markets in the US. Quoted:
Quoted:
..snip... That information is also readily available to everyone...., so "Kelone, Inc." could be formed to make new drugs...if you're willing to spend the time, money and deal with the regulatory hassles...the same way any other company can. Yes, so then someone can come along and say "thanks for all the time and money doing the research for me. Now I've developed some new widget using that information, and I will imprison anyone who does the same. I've got to protect my your investment after all!" The fundamental problem is that not every idea is patentable (by social/legal convention, since that is all patents are) . But for some reason, every 'drug' should be patentable? Why is that? Some post-doc discovers a new pathway and publishes it. Then others use that hard won information to exploit the pathway to solve some problem. That is great, science doesn't do anyone any good until it is put to use. But why should it be the drug developer that gets a .gov enforced monopoly, and not the post-doc? There may be a good argument for why it ought to be that way, but it certainly is just an accident of history that we arrived at that arrangement. If we did significantly reduced the prize we give for drug development, drug development under the current arrangement would very likely suffer. Can drugs only be developed under the current arrangement? Certainly not. Is the current arrangement the best way to achieve our goal (which is what?) - extremely doubtful - as we arrived at it by happenstance. Sadly, we can't advocate it under the magical umbrella of 'yeah, free market, bitch!' - because it is one of the least free markets in the US. If a drug isn't unique (and, yes, I'll be the first to say that some are awful similar yet get patents...but then...those competing drugs can't be priced very highly....), then it doesn't get the patent protections. Again...the post-doc can do the same thing...use their research to develop a product, then market it. Yes, Post-Docs can get patents...but generally their research sponsor (often a University) keeps it as part of the contract. You seem to just think that a new drug falls off a tree, and someone picks it up and makes money on it. Despite that basic research (cell signalling pathway, cell surface receptors, etc. etc.)...it still takes a hell of a lot of work do develop that 'wonder' drug. From an 'anti-pharma' website....'11 Major drug companies made 85 BILLION in profits last year....' (referring to 2012).....in the same year, McDonalds made just under 6 Billion in profits, Apple $41 billion. Walmart $32 Billion. Exxon $44 Billion. The largest drug profit that year: Pfizer at $14 billion... Here's an overall profit margin picture in the health care industry: 
Here's a comparison of some overall industries....and the Pharmaceutical company makes about (from the chart above) 17%: 
Here's a 2011 graphic comparing companies: 
You mention that 'under the current arrangement'....what kind of a substitute would you place? All research paid by the government? No profit motive? Can you name a drug that was developed for an overseas (socialized medicine) market...? No...any new drugs from China, India, Germany, Israel, Switzerland (the locations of some of the largest generic manufacturers in the world)...that were never marketed in the US (i.e...designed to show a profit)? Ask someone who (one of our Physician members) is familiar with medicine under a socialist government....it isn't pretty. No, we don't have a 'free market'...if we did, the US government would pressure other countries to honor our patents and protect trade in things made (and patented) in the US.....then the rest of the world would pay our R & D costs, etc....right now, we're the only country that offers the potential to have a significant profit from innovation in drugs. Here's a list from the CDC of antibiotic resistant bacteria...and their 'threat level'... ..................................................................... Urgent Threats ¦ ¦ Clostridium difficile ¦ ¦ Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae ....................................................................................................... Serious Threats ¦ ¦ Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant Campylobacter ¦ ¦ Fluconazole-resistant Candida (a fungus) ¦ ¦ Extended spectrum ß-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBLs) ¦ ¦ Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) ¦ ¦ Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant Non-typhoidal Salmonella ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant Salmonella Typhi ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant Shigella ¦ ¦ Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae ¦ ¦ Drug-resistant tuberculosis ........................................................... Concerning Threats ¦ ¦ Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) ¦ ¦ Erythromycin-resistant Group A Streptococcus ¦ ¦ Clindamycin-resistant Group B Streptococcus That's just ones we're beginning to see in the US. Doesn't even begin to cover some that are still overseas.... Low profit in antibiotics....but at least there's still some profit. Take that away, and we're in trouble when those become epidemics....because there won't be new antibiotics to fight them. Cancer drugs...often low profit (short treatment courses for some people, expensive to produce, difficult to get tested and on the market with any length of time left on a patent) so companies don't invest as much money in them, so new ones are slow to come.......there have been repeated shortages in the generics....as the generic manufacturers run out of raw materials, and turn to more profitable (even in the generic form) drugs that are easier to produce.... Etc...etc...etc... Screwing with a system that at least works most of the time..even if it's expensive.....and hoping for 'we can do this better...let's let the government control it....' smacks of pure socialism....and has been proven to fail repeatedly.... |
|
Quoted:
You're not ignorant, but you yourself have pointed out the very complex picture that is health care in the U.S. Drug companies are not evil, but they are companies. They will do whatever the law allows. There is no Medicaid equivalent in Egypt so they can only charge what the market will bear. You can't pick *one* aspect of our system and choose to scrutinize it without looking at the rest of it. Socialized medicine will not solve any of these problems but in fact make them worse. I grew up in Canada and saw it first-hand. But Americans are going to learn that the hard way. Here's another point: There is no such thing as a free lunch. My father practiced medicine in communist Hungary before escaping to Canada. You had to bribe the doctors and nurses to get good care. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. You're not ignorant, but you yourself have pointed out the very complex picture that is health care in the U.S. Drug companies are not evil, but they are companies. They will do whatever the law allows. There is no Medicaid equivalent in Egypt so they can only charge what the market will bear. You can't pick *one* aspect of our system and choose to scrutinize it without looking at the rest of it. Socialized medicine will not solve any of these problems but in fact make them worse. I grew up in Canada and saw it first-hand. But Americans are going to learn that the hard way. Here's another point: There is no such thing as a free lunch. My father practiced medicine in communist Hungary before escaping to Canada. You had to bribe the doctors and nurses to get good care. I totally agree that the problem is complex. What makes it even moreso is the fact that some of these treatments literally mean life or death to those afflicted. It is very unseemly to think that in this country, in this day and age, that a life saving treatment would be witheld due to a profit motive. As I said earlier, a solid profit motive is imperative for driving research however, a certain level of altruism should be a factor as well due to the very nature of the field. When great discrepencies in pricing are allowed, those who wind up on the short end of the deal will invariably cry foul, thus leading to calls for socialized medicine. It's really no different than the "wealth disparity" the D's are always harping on. When so much is concentrated in the hands of so few, the seeds of collectivism are sown. I don't particularly agree with either instance but I can see why the one leads to calls for the other in both circumstances. |
|
Quoted:
I had Hep C, type 2B (the hardest to treat). The docs gave me a 30% chance for successful treatment. I spent a year taking Interferon B injections along with Ribavirin pills. It was tough to get through. Many folks don't stay with it due to the side effects of the chemo cocktail. One year was a long time. I was able to stick with it and have been clear for 7 years now. I joined an on-line support group for Hep C patients and that made world of difference. Sadly, many in the support group didn't make it. It was heartbreaking. I caught it from a blood transfusion. Luckily, I had good insurance and they paid for all the diagnostic work, needle biopsy, etc. and drugs. The drugs were $1800/month. **This mssg confidential.** I expect you to keep this to yourself, even after I'm gone. I had a massive blood transfusion at an Army Hospital in W. Germany 1980, my guts were shredded. Fast fwd. twenty years and I found out Hep C. Back then no one tested blood drives for the virus, as it was rare. In 1999 I had problems and went to Ohio State University Hospital and got the news my viral count was 3.3 million. I passed enough tests to qualify for the meds you mentioned. I was given 4 choices; Low ofrhigh dose pills and low and high dose shots. I was the first person to ever chose max dose of both at that Hospital Seeing how they put me on the transplant list with 12 months life expectancy I chose max pills and max shots. it worked, my first 12 week viral load test came back undectable. Thirteen months of max dose everything, spaced exactly 12 hours apart, did the trick. In May my viral load was still undectable I'm a lucky guy. Please respect my privacy on this subject, as you're the only one on this board who knows this. I just wanted you to know you're not alone when it comes to Hep C. Kudos, for having the balls to make that post Best regards, Steve |
|
Quoted:
Bingo. Imported Egyptian versions of the drug would be everywhere. Quoted:
Quoted:
Our drug market is NOT a free market. The government won't let me shop elsewhere for my drugs. If there was an actual free market, price differences like this wouldn't last for a day. Wrong. We'd just stop selling in Egypt. |
|
Quoted:
Wrong. We'd just stop selling in Egypt. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our drug market is NOT a free market. The government won't let me shop elsewhere for my drugs. If there was an actual free market, price differences like this wouldn't last for a day. Wrong. We'd just stop selling in Egypt. or the drug co would raise the egypt price to equal what they need to get for the blended demand from egypt and usa |
|
Quoted:
Their pricing by the wealth of the country. The US is 86000, Egypt is 900. Because other countries do not have to deal with FDA regs, regulation, litigation, oversight, OSHA, EEOC, and so forth. In addition, you are not guaranteed to get the real drug and if something happens badly, you cannot sue. There is a reason why the US did not have any thalidomide babies, |
|
Quoted:
Why doesn't Medicaid do what Medicare and other insurance companies do? Just write a check for 20% of the original bill, tell them to enjoy it and STFU? Would you get an oil change and then insist the guy who changed your oil get %20 of he agreed upon price or do you have some integrity? |
|
Quoted:
so its wrong for a company to set a price for its product. da comrade!!! Forward! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because thats what the company is selling it for. How much should it be? Here is the thing. You can't argue that the company should be able to sell it for what ever price they want when the US medical system is a clusterfuck of government subsidies and regulations. Yes you can. Two wrongs don't make a right.
so its wrong for a company to set a price for its product. da comrade!!! Forward! |
|
Quoted:
You conveniently keep ignoring that fact that medicine is different in the United States. Has there ever been a 3000 page bill that regulated the Movie industry? Do Americans get government subsidized movie tickets when they turn 65? Your posts are basic logical fallacies piled on top of logical fallacies. Quoted:
Quoted:
because, as noted, thats the price point they can make money. do you think hollywood charges the same for movies it shows in the United States globally? Hell, even domestically? Car companies? Gasoline companies? There is always a market discrepency. The key difference here is that the drug costs nothing to make, and billions to develop. I will ask, yet again because no one has given me an answer, who should set the price for a product if not the producer of that product? Or is medicine different? You conveniently keep ignoring that fact that medicine is different in the United States. Has there ever been a 3000 page bill that regulated the Movie industry? Do Americans get government subsidized movie tickets when they turn 65? Your posts are basic logical fallacies piled on top of logical fallacies. And thus the problem is government , not the drug companies |
|
Quoted:
Would be interesting to see how much this drug costs in Great Britain or Germany. Maybe this will start some drug tourism industry where a stateside consumer can go to Egypt and get treated for 12 weeks...cheaper than the alternative. Medicaid will start hiring travel agents. And in Egypt he will not be guaranteed that he has the real drug and if there is an adverse response, he cannot sue for a million dollars. |
|
Quoted:
You're right, they ought to be able to charge whatever they want. But only to a point. They should NOT be allowed to GOUGE the ever lovin piss out of some and damn near give it to others. We're not talkin about a gallon of gas here, this is life altering and in many cases, life saving medicine. I'd also like to know if there was any .gov grant money anywhere in the development of it. If so, then the whole thing is bullshit because if American taxpayers footed any of the bill for it, well, I'll just leave it there. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember the article. The company rep was answering questions about the drug. When asked why it cost so much, the rep stated that it was because it was what they could get. Funny how we get upset over profiteering in disasters, but profiteering in the medical field is good business. I suppose you'd be happier if they never developed the drug in the first place, right? It's their product, they ought to be able to charge whatever they want. Keep in mind that before they developed it, this treatment did not exist. The investors in that company risked some number of billions to develop this drug, they ought to reap the rewards. They could have just as easily lost their ass if things didn't pan out. Of course now that things worked out, you want their creation cheap and easy huh? It's not likely you would have had your wallet out to make investors whole if things had gone the other way. This is our system working. In 20 years after their patent expires and their costs are recouped, you'll see generics hit the market at a much more affordable rate. 20 years is the price you pay to the get very best minds working on new drugs that have the potential to save lives. It's a good deal for society if you've got the vision to see past your nose. You'd never see a drug like this developed in a socialist country. I guess the plus side is that you wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of some company "overcharging" you for a life saving treatment. You're right, they ought to be able to charge whatever they want. But only to a point. They should NOT be allowed to GOUGE the ever lovin piss out of some and damn near give it to others. We're not talkin about a gallon of gas here, this is life altering and in many cases, life saving medicine. I'd also like to know if there was any .gov grant money anywhere in the development of it. If so, then the whole thing is bullshit because if American taxpayers footed any of the bill for it, well, I'll just leave it there. And if Marxists refused to allow "price gouging" but still wanted regulation and litigation, there would be ZERO new drugs in the market and NOBODY would have a cure. |
|
Quoted:
Your question, like everything else you posted in this thread, is flawed. Q: How much should the drugs cost? A: As much as the market for the drug is willing and able to pay. Lucky for you there isn't a limit on logical fallacies for life members. Your membership would of been forfeit posts ago. Step away from the keyboard and stop embarrassing yourself in this thread. Quoted:
Quoted:
pro tip: when you take multiple paragraphs to fail to answer a simple question, you are wrong. so answer the question. How much should the drugs cost? Your question, like everything else you posted in this thread, is flawed. Q: How much should the drugs cost? A: As much as the market for the drug is willing and able to pay. Lucky for you there isn't a limit on logical fallacies for life members. Your membership would of been forfeit posts ago. Step away from the keyboard and stop embarrassing yourself in this thread. But he's correct in the realities of bringing a drug to market, not some utopian fantasyland. The costs of getting a drug from conception to FDA approval lie in the billions of dollar range. |
|
Quoted:
I won't answer for RF, but I review meds for my clients for inclusion or exclusion on drug formularies so I have to review meds like this. They bought the company that developed the drug about 2 yrs before it came to market for $11 billion. They got their other drugs but this was their crown jewel. By that time most of the research was complete. Their marketing strategy so far has compared the cost vs liver transplantation as well as % that would needed to be retreated if they failed on other treatments based on US costs. I'd bet they knew exactly what they were going to charge going into the acquisition process. Seem's their were right because they already made close to $ 6 billion in 6 months on this med. ETA-this is heads and shoulders better than other meds. Better results, cuts treatment time by >half (best case scenarios), less side effects, drug interactions, easier to take, and expanded the number of patients with hep C that can be treated. Leading recommendations are to ditch older therapies and use this 1st line in combo with other drugs. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Believe it or not, I price drugs for a living. Ask away! RF Do you think Gilead had a very definite price for this drug as it came through trials and was ready to market? I mean they knew the present offerings and if there's was better then making it more expensive (or as expensive) is a no-brainer....in the real world. They bought the company that developed the drug about 2 yrs before it came to market for $11 billion. They got their other drugs but this was their crown jewel. By that time most of the research was complete. Their marketing strategy so far has compared the cost vs liver transplantation as well as % that would needed to be retreated if they failed on other treatments based on US costs. I'd bet they knew exactly what they were going to charge going into the acquisition process. Seem's their were right because they already made close to $ 6 billion in 6 months on this med. ETA-this is heads and shoulders better than other meds. Better results, cuts treatment time by >half (best case scenarios), less side effects, drug interactions, easier to take, and expanded the number of patients with hep C that can be treated. Leading recommendations are to ditch older therapies and use this 1st line in combo with other drugs. |
|
Quoted:
Bingo. Imported Egyptian versions of the drug would be everywhere. Quoted:
Quoted:
Our drug market is NOT a free market. The government won't let me shop elsewhere for my drugs. If there was an actual free market, price differences like this wouldn't last for a day. And when the drug with crappy QA made by kids in sweatshops fuck you up, who are you going to sue? |
|
Quoted:
And in Egypt he will not be guaranteed that he has the real drug and if there is an adverse response, he cannot sue for a million dollars. Quoted:
Quoted:
Would be interesting to see how much this drug costs in Great Britain or Germany. Maybe this will start some drug tourism industry where a stateside consumer can go to Egypt and get treated for 12 weeks...cheaper than the alternative. Medicaid will start hiring travel agents. And in Egypt he will not be guaranteed that he has the real drug and if there is an adverse response, he cannot sue for a million dollars. I was assuming Gilead got a patent. Are you saying even if there's a patent there's no guarantee on the it being real. |
|
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. So what measure of "altruism" do you demand in other markets? You need food to survive, so I guess you would want a law demanding that a farmer not sell his crops at a higher price than you deem fair? |
|
Quoted:
So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In response to C-4 (cause I can't edit a quote tree for shit)
That's a real nice rant and attempt at education but you didn't answer any part of my post. Is it or is it not OK with you for the drug companies to sell at a loss abroad while butt fucking those in the USA? The .gov itself disallowed the bargaining on prices with the drug companies back when GWB's drug benefit was coming into existence. How utterly insane is that? And while I agree in principle with the whole "wild wild west" thing in the free market, some measure of altruism should be included in the medical system. It actually is life and death at times. Sure, you gotta turn a profit and all but let's not hold peoples' lives hostage for an extra God damn dollar. And I am in full agreement with the .gov causing a lot of unnecessary expense, but for them to then allow the new drug to be sold at a loss to some while others take it in the shorts or do without completely (especially if taxpayer money was involved in its invention) is just flat wrong in this instance. Like I said, this ain't about a gallon of gas. Total ignorance. Pricing has nothing to do with cost. It does have to do with the ability of people to pay. People are paying. This drug is cheaper than everything else used to treat Hep C. $1000 a pill is a lifesaving discount. Sounds like a deal to me. What it sells for in other countries matters not. So it is cheaper in Egypt, big deal. Life is cheaper in Egypt and it also happens to suck. So apparently it is OK to wring the last dollar out of someone for a life saving drug. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have the push for socialized medicine. And I'm the ignorant one. Actually, that last sentence was the most correct thing you have typed so far. |
|
Quoted:
profiteering is bad? Again, how should one determine the price of medicine? Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember the article. The company rep was answering questions about the drug. When asked why it cost so much, the rep stated that it was because it was what they could get. Funny how we get upset over profiteering in disasters, but profiteering in the medical field is good business. profiteering is bad? Again, how should one determine the price of medicine? If the US weren't subsidizing the rest of the world -- including Europe -- drugs could be cheaper here. |
|
Quoted:
I was assuming Gilead got a patent. Are you saying even if there's a patent there's no guarantee on the it being real. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would be interesting to see how much this drug costs in Great Britain or Germany. Maybe this will start some drug tourism industry where a stateside consumer can go to Egypt and get treated for 12 weeks...cheaper than the alternative. Medicaid will start hiring travel agents. And in Egypt he will not be guaranteed that he has the real drug and if there is an adverse response, he cannot sue for a million dollars. I was assuming Gilead got a patent. Are you saying even if there's a patent there's no guarantee on the it being real. absolutely. These countries do not have the oversite and QA regs we have. |
|
Quoted: profiteering is bad? Again, how should one determine the price of medicine? Quoted: Quoted: I remember the article. The company rep was answering questions about the drug. When asked why it cost so much, the rep stated that it was because it was what they could get. Funny how we get upset over profiteering in disasters, but profiteering in the medical field is good business. profiteering is bad? Again, how should one determine the price of medicine? Most hospitals are non-profit.
|
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter