|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranibizumab
Same crap. Different drug (for treating macular degeneration). My mom has to administer tens of thousand dollars worth of the expensive kind every friday.
"In 2008, bevacizumab cost Medicare only $20 million for about 480,000 injections, while ranibizumab cost Medicare $537 million for only 337,000 injections.[6] A small study showed no superior effect of ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in direct comparison.[7] The CATT trial data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2011. The trial showed that the two drugs "had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule". The authors also concluded that differences in the rates of side effects required further study.[8]"
The company didn't want to run the expensive and extensive trials necessary to have the cheaper drug (used for cancer treatment) approved for treatment of macular degeneration. Instead, they slightly modified the cancer drug, ran the trials to have it officially approved for AMD, while raising its price by a factor of 30.
|
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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.
At the end of the day, most top of the line brand name drugs like the ones you mentioned have discount card.. IE: Lipitor for 4$, etc..
and they end up getting generic after their patent expires... IE: Lipitor.
There are plenty of alternatives to high priced brand name drugs, unless of course you start going into that upper echelon of medicine, for the rare diseases and conditions. That's where like you said the government should step in and help out, no reason why patients with cancer can't be given a medicine, or anything else really.
|
This is nothing new... if they can get away with it, they'll charge whatever price they want. if you need it, you have to buy it. It's the same with gas. Now the drug part is a little more interesting because if you live in the US, you get raped by the prices. In Canada, the drugs are soooooooo much cheaper but there are laws against buying drugs from Canada, so the companies can make more money. the US government is corrupt. that's all i gotta say. they're all bought out by the big companies.
|
On October 14 2012 11:17 LaLuSh wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RanibizumabSame crap. Different drug (for treating macular degeneration). My mom has to administer tens of thousand dollars worth of the expensive kind every friday. Show nested quote +"In 2008, bevacizumab cost Medicare only $20 million for about 480,000 injections, while ranibizumab cost Medicare $537 million for only 337,000 injections.[6] A small study showed no superior effect of ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in direct comparison.[7] The CATT trial data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2011. The trial showed that the two drugs "had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule". The authors also concluded that differences in the rates of side effects required further study.[8]"
It's sad, there's so many medicines like that. They formulate them different, add a letter or two onto the drug name and market it as a high priced brand name. Look at the entire line of proton pump inhibitors, omeprazole(Prilosec), lansoprazole(Prevacid), esomeprazole(Nexium), pantoprazole(Protonix), rabeprazole(Aciphex), dexlansoprazole(Dexilant)...
It's all the same stuff, one little thing that could be different is allowed to be patented and made into a billionaire making machine. So sad.
|
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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.
No, we don't all support it, when it comes to people staying alive or being dead, or just maintaining a decent quality of living. That is the whole problem.
India seems to have gotten it right:
Novartis’ first attempts at patenting Glivec were rejected in India because it was considered to be an updated version of an existing Novartis drug, and therefore not eligible for patent protection. To protect consumers of low-cost medicines — and its pharmaceutical industry — Indian patent law aims to curtail a process known as ‘evergreening,’ in which pharmaceutical companies make sometimes minor improvements to an old medicine, allowing them to renew their patent. Under India’s tough standards, modifications that do not improve the efficacy of the drug are not eligible for extended patents.
Source
I hope they can keep it up.
Here's an interesting blog about recent legal events in India and their implications.
|
On October 14 2012 13:05 Lombard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. No, we don't all support it, when it comes to people staying alive or being dead, or just maintaining a decent quality of living. That is the whole problem. You're talking about fundamental problems with societal inequality now - this extends much farther and deeper than just a single hypothetical situation with a single drug. Of course people deserve a good quality life - it's just not that simple in reality.
India seems to have gotten it right: Show nested quote +Novartis’ first attempts at patenting Glivec were rejected in India because it was considered to be an updated version of an existing Novartis drug, and therefore not eligible for patent protection. To protect consumers of low-cost medicines — and its pharmaceutical industry — Indian patent law aims to curtail a process known as ‘evergreening,’ in which pharmaceutical companies make sometimes minor improvements to an old medicine, allowing them to renew their patent. Under India’s tough standards, modifications that do not improve the efficacy of the drug are not eligible for extended patents.
SourceI hope they can keep it up. Here's an interesting blog about recent legal events in India and their implications.
|
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.
Your view of the world doesn't work in practice. If we thought like this, then all those monopoly laws should be abolished, all of the regulations on price control for inner city living costs would be abolished. These kinds of laws and regulations are necessary since those that weren't born privileged (which I assume you were, or at least you desire servitude to those that are privileged) shouldn't be allowed to be thrown to the streets by those that were. How would it be any different than an old society with nobility in place if we are allowed to just fuck everyone up less fortunate than us?
|
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
|
I came into this thread asking myself why MicroSoft would make a product they would call "drug" and why on earth they would sell it to apple.
|
So, has anyone in this thread yet bothered to explain with evidence and not conjecture why this drug can't simply be sold generic since it's off patent? I've been off a while.
|
On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
|
On October 15 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
So, has anyone in this thread yet bothered to explain with evidence and not conjecture why this drug can't simply be sold generic since it's off patent? I've been off a while. It could be sold as a generic, but it's still not that simple. Someone has to make it as a generic and this requires filling a abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA. There's a little bit of info on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviated_New_Drug_Application.
But basically, you have to prove that your formulation is equivalent in efficacy and bioavailability, which is overall concentrations in the body. This is notoriously difficult with monoclonal antibodies, which is what kind of drug we were talking about in the OP. It's not just a 30 or 40 atom molecule, its a huge protein however many thousand amino-acids long. This means exponentially more things can go wrong with proving it to be equivalent. So yes possible, but very difficult to do in reality. Companies really like these biologics because they are difficult to make generics for.
|
On October 15 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there. Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases. On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume. So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
|
On October 15 2012 03:55 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there. Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases. On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume. So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels. The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
|
I remembered when i went to buy prednisolon in sweden. It was like 800 sek for 200 pills. Then i went on a vacation to thailand and got 120 pills for like 30 sek. It's really fucked up. But then it's a limit on how much on can spend on medication and after that it becomes free. Must be a hell where you dont have those privileges.
|
On October 15 2012 04:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 03:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 15 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there. Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases. On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume. So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels. The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue. I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
The point was that competition could hurt more than it could help.
|
On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
|
On October 15 2012 04:13 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 15 2012 03:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 15 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there. Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases. On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume. So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels. The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue. I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_= The point was that competition could hurt more than it could help.
In a way. It could be argued that innovation would be hindered if the company couldn't benefit from its own discoveries. It just adds to the pile of things that suggest that we can't leave it 100% up to the private companies to do stuff in relation to medicine. There's something fundamentally wrong in the idea of profiting off of people's illnesses. I don't think it's too much to ask to involve the public.
Putting an arbitrary price on a person's life is just not the way to go.
On October 15 2012 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
I don't think it's about "taking away" private initiative. It's more about controlling their ambitions. Of course pharmaceutic companies are necessary, and furthermore they need to turn a profit - but currently they're allowed to gouge pretty hardcore. While I'm fine with CEOs of tech companies getting absurdly rich, pharmaceutic companies should be held to a standard of morality. When someone gets rich by selling medicine at an artificially inflated price, he's letting people die. That's just how it is.
|
On October 15 2012 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
Or you subsidize the entire drug market and ensure that everyone with a regular, honest job can afford food, rent and necessary medicine. Like, you know, a civilized species.
Things like schools and hospitals(including medicine) should be about their primary function first, profit second, they are instrumental to the basic functionality of society, and as such should never be jeopardized by handing them over to private companies whos only objective is to make more money, even to the detriment of society as a whole. Humans are irretrievably greedy and selfish by nature, a society that wishes to survive has to take steps to protect itself from many of humanity's baser instincts.
|
On October 15 2012 04:34 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote:
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. This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read. Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind. If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost. Or you subsidize the entire drug market and ensure that everyone with a regular, honest job can afford food, rent and necessary medicine. Like, you know, a civilized species. Things like schools and hospitals(including medicine) should be about their primary function first, profit second, they are instrumental to the basic functionality of society, and as such should never be jeopardized by handing them over to private companies whos only objective is to make more money, even to the detriment of society as a whole. Humans are irretrievably greedy and selfish by nature, a society that wishes to survive has to take steps to protect itself from many of humanity's baser instincts.
Subsidizing drugs wouldn't change a thing as far as profits go. It would just mean that profits come from government spending more than from insurance and individuals.
Generally the point of a for-profit system is that by making more profit you better society. If that is not the case (and it generally IS the case with drugs) then you have a problem with the market, not profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
