|
On October 14 2012 07:12 Caihead wrote:For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/drugs/ced/pdf/alemtuzumab.pdfThese numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else.
I'm prefacing this statement with the acknowledgement this is nothing more than mere postulating. I have nothing to back it up and it's even partially devil's advocate, partially belief that it may play a role.
I would assume that the reason the prices are such in Canada and they still enter the Canadian market is because a net profit is to be made, indeed. But that's because the medicine is developed. The incentive is to sell the product in the markets where they can gouge the prices, indeed. But say we remove that incentive. Then the companies in the first place will have significantly less incentive to invest in developing a new product. Canada thus indirectly benefits from the fact prices can be sold for such a price in the United States. If the United States and all other markets regulated this things to similar degrees, then pharma companies would be much less likely to pioneer new development.
In short, they develop the medicines because of hte profit to be made in the U.S., not Canada. But since they can make a profit anyways in Canada, why not, since the research is already completed. However, the incentive from the profit in the Canadian market isn't enough in itself to warrant the huge risk of developing the medicines.
|
On October 14 2012 08:44 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 07:12 Caihead wrote:For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/drugs/ced/pdf/alemtuzumab.pdfThese numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else. I'm prefacing this statement with the acknowledgement this is nothing more than mere postulating. I have nothing to back it up and it's even partially devil's advocate, partially belief that it may play a role. I would assume that the reason the prices are such in Canada and they still enter the Canadian market is because a net profit is to be made, indeed. But that's because the medicine is developed. The incentive is to sell the product in the markets where they can gouge the prices, indeed. But say we remove that incentive. Then the companies in the first place will have significantly less incentive to invest in developing a new product. Canada thus indirectly benefits from the fact prices can be sold for such a price in the United States. If the United States and all other markets regulated this things to similar degrees, then pharma companies would be much less likely to pioneer new development. In short, they develop the medicines because of hte profit to be made in the U.S., not Canada. But since they can make a profit anyways in Canada, why not, since the research is already completed. However, the incentive from the profit in the Canadian market isn't enough in itself to warrant the huge risk of developing the medicines.
All of which would be true...Except Canada is also a leading nation when it comes to medical research.
|
On October 14 2012 10:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 08:44 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2012 07:12 Caihead wrote:For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/drugs/ced/pdf/alemtuzumab.pdfThese numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else. I'm prefacing this statement with the acknowledgement this is nothing more than mere postulating. I have nothing to back it up and it's even partially devil's advocate, partially belief that it may play a role. I would assume that the reason the prices are such in Canada and they still enter the Canadian market is because a net profit is to be made, indeed. But that's because the medicine is developed. The incentive is to sell the product in the markets where they can gouge the prices, indeed. But say we remove that incentive. Then the companies in the first place will have significantly less incentive to invest in developing a new product. Canada thus indirectly benefits from the fact prices can be sold for such a price in the United States. If the United States and all other markets regulated this things to similar degrees, then pharma companies would be much less likely to pioneer new development. In short, they develop the medicines because of hte profit to be made in the U.S., not Canada. But since they can make a profit anyways in Canada, why not, since the research is already completed. However, the incentive from the profit in the Canadian market isn't enough in itself to warrant the huge risk of developing the medicines. All of which would be true...Except Canada is also a leading nation when it comes to medical research.
woooo I'm glad I made it clear that was all just theory. haha I'm not really involved with knowing the intricacies  . I was trying to think as an Econ major.
|
On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
|
On October 14 2012 10:38 AUFKLARUNG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it? The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities. Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine).
Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
|
On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
I give like 30 ventolin inhalers away for free in the ER everyday lol
|
On October 14 2012 10:47 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 10:38 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it? The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities. Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives. It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine). Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. They are operating at a level that keeps everyone handsomely paid and business machinery secure for any future/unforseen drawbacks. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives.
|
On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new.
ohh no it's not? Brand name drugs have been rebranded, taken off the market for long periods of times, and increased in price 20x+ like 300 times lol.
|
On October 14 2012 10:55 AUFKLARUNG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 10:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2012 10:38 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it? The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities. Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives. It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine). Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them. While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives.
Oh, I agree, I don't think that they are losing money or even just breaking even. I'm just saying that when you're dealing with uncertainty, especially at this scale (and with all the potential for liability), that extreme profits are significantly more justifiable than in other areas of business.
|
This reminds me of another drug named viagra 
|
On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$.
|
On October 14 2012 11:01 NuKE[vZ] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100. You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$.
Well, I'm not sure if there's sarcasm in your post, but CFCs are fucking awful for the environment.
|
On October 14 2012 10:59 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 10:55 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On October 14 2012 10:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2012 10:38 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it? The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities. Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives. It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine). Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them. While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives. Oh, I agree, I don't think that they are losing money or even just breaking even. I'm just saying that when you're dealing with uncertainty, especially at this scale (and with all the potential for liability), that extreme profits are significantly more justifiable than in other areas of business.
There has to be a more thorough accounting of pharmaceutical records to have a definite numbers on the cost of operation in order to determine reasonable pricing. We can discuss endlessly what margin is acceptable considering incentive and risks, but truth be told, we would merely be speculating. The state has to do this, if only it were not so tied up economically to these multinational organizations.
|
On October 14 2012 07:06 W2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:54 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:51 PVJ wrote:On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
You might find it unethical, but it's good business and it's completely legal.
The effectiveness of this drug means that it suddenly becomes that much more valuable to the consumer. Demand for this has shifted right significantly of course, and they are charging a price that their statisticians and whatnot see as a price consumers will be willing to pay. They made the drug, so they can charge whatever they want for it. If it's "overpriced", it will fail because consumers will refuse to pay for it. But this kind of drug is very price inelastic because there are many people in great need of it, so they can afford to make crazy increases in price and still expect many people to buy it. Hate the system, but that's just how it works. Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool. As has been stated over and over again in this thread, it feels like you are leaving out where these medicines are coming from. Companies pour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in research to make safe and effective drugs. If a company doesn't expect to get money back why would they invest? I'm not asking them to lose money over it, just asking them to profit less. These companies maximize profits to the point at which they'd let many go without treatment. Which sucks. Go find any big pharma company and find out how much they spend on research vs how much revenue their drugs generate. The money is definitely not being put into more research. Instead it goes towards buying out other companies, advertising, etc etc.
Profiting less in comparison to their competitors generally means the death of management in terms of takeover by competitors or a private equity group that is willing to steer the company back on track to higher profit margins.
|
The problem atleast in the United States with inflation of pharmaceuticals is insurances. I work at a small family pharmacy where my boss has been a pharmacist for over 30 years, and owned the store for 25 years. There was a time when insurance was a rarity, back then you came into a pharmacy put a bottle on the counter, tablets were counted up and put into said bottle and then you charged them a low cash price because the price of medicine was reasonable. Now with insurances, everything is practically covered, so insurances and pharmaceutical companies can work hand in hand and create prices with agreements from each other in terms of rebates and coverage.
It went from a Pharmacist dispensing medicine and consulting the patient to a Pharmacist having to call processor of insurances because there's a change in a bin number, or group number of the patients insurance; or a Pharmacist is calling a doctor to get a prescription adjusted because the original item wasn't covered by the insurance... or better yet sometimes having to give a medicine away being reimbursed less money than the medicine was worth, aka a downright loss.
Insurances suck, pharmaceutical companies suck.
|
On October 14 2012 11:03 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 11:01 NuKE[vZ] wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100. You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$. Well, I'm not sure if there's sarcasm in your post, but CFCs are fucking awful for the environment.
No sarcasm... but there's more CFC in a bottle of hairspray than there was in a pump of albuterol. Believe me the CFC in albuterol was very insignificant, it wasn't doing any harm to the environment.
|
On October 14 2012 11:04 AUFKLARUNG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 10:59 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2012 10:55 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On October 14 2012 10:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 14 2012 10:38 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it? The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities. Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives. It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine). Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them. While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives. Oh, I agree, I don't think that they are losing money or even just breaking even. I'm just saying that when you're dealing with uncertainty, especially at this scale (and with all the potential for liability), that extreme profits are significantly more justifiable than in other areas of business. There has to be a more thorough accounting of pharmaceutical records to have a definite numbers on the cost of operation in order to determine reasonable pricing. We can discuss endlessly what margin is acceptable considering incentive and risks, but truth be told, we would merely be speculating. The state has to do this, if only it were not so tied up economically to these multinational organizations.
In New York, Medicaid requires this type of program. It's basically a survey, you as an owner of a Pharmacy have to answer questions, give figures of operational costs, as far as utilities, employee wages and basically anything a Pharmacy needs to spend on to stay afloat, and based on that Medicaid determines what they reimburse. Honestly I think it's a terrible idea, there's a national AWP price that is normally set for all medicines, and it should be strictly based on that. AWP should be regulated more, so Pharmacies can get reimbursed downright. We can talk ethics all we want, but a Pharmacy is a business just like anything else, they shouldn't be breaking even on whatever they give, or straight up losing money, which is a huge problem in todays market.
|
On October 14 2012 11:07 NuKE[vZ] wrote:
The problem atleast in the United States with inflation of pharmaceuticals is insurances. I work at a small family pharmacy where my boss has been a pharmacist for over 30 years, and owned the store for 25 years. There was a time when insurance was a rarity, back then you came into a pharmacy put a bottle on the counter, tablets were counted up and put into said bottle and then you charged them a low cash price because the price of medicine was reasonable. Now with insurances, everything is practically covered, so insurances and pharmaceutical companies can work hand in hand and create prices with agreements from each other in terms of rebates and coverage.
It went from a Pharmacist dispensing medicine and consulting the patient to a Pharmacist having to call processor of insurances because there's a change in a bin number, or group number of the patients insurance; or a Pharmacist is calling a doctor to get a prescription adjusted because the original item wasn't covered by the insurance... or better yet sometimes having to give a medicine away being reimbursed less money than the medicine was worth, aka a downright loss.
Insurances suck, pharmaceutical companies suck.
lol. How is that in the insurance companies fault? Why the hell doesn't the pharmacy have someone in admin that's paid 1/10 of the amount do that anyways?
Note: I'm biased, I work for a major insurance company.
|
On October 14 2012 11:13 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 11:07 NuKE[vZ] wrote:
The problem atleast in the United States with inflation of pharmaceuticals is insurances. I work at a small family pharmacy where my boss has been a pharmacist for over 30 years, and owned the store for 25 years. There was a time when insurance was a rarity, back then you came into a pharmacy put a bottle on the counter, tablets were counted up and put into said bottle and then you charged them a low cash price because the price of medicine was reasonable. Now with insurances, everything is practically covered, so insurances and pharmaceutical companies can work hand in hand and create prices with agreements from each other in terms of rebates and coverage.
It went from a Pharmacist dispensing medicine and consulting the patient to a Pharmacist having to call processor of insurances because there's a change in a bin number, or group number of the patients insurance; or a Pharmacist is calling a doctor to get a prescription adjusted because the original item wasn't covered by the insurance... or better yet sometimes having to give a medicine away being reimbursed less money than the medicine was worth, aka a downright loss.
Insurances suck, pharmaceutical companies suck. lol. How is that in the insurance companies fault? Why the hell doesn't the pharmacy have someone in admin that's paid 1/10 of the amount do that anyways? Note: I'm biased, I work for a major insurance company.
I blame the insurances indirectly lol... what I meant was the old days when there weren't many insurances, everything was just fine. Once insurances came about and then started teaming up with pharmaceutical companies in terms of rebates and such, that's where prices increased and inflation set in. As far as your second question, I don't understand what you are asking, could you please explain the question to me? thanks
|
In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
