|
On October 14 2012 03:53 W2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Umm.... How does rebranding allow them to charge 20 times the price? Why can't they charge that now? Something doesn't make sense here. Because if they stop production of the old brand and limit distribution of the new brand to ONLY leukemia patients, then they can control which drugs go where and to whom. Right now doctors have access to the old brand and can prescribe them generously for off-label use. When the new brand kicks in, they cannot do this anymore.
What? I don't understand...
Either there is a patent on the old drug or not. If there is no patent, then anyone can produce it generically and doctors can still prescribe it any way they like. If there is a patent, they can charge whatever they like without branding. Doesn't add up.
Sounds like the REAL problem here is some sort of terrible counter-intuitive government licensing and not capitalism.
|
On October 14 2012 03:45 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:39 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:34 FreakyDroid 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. Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is. I would argue cars have a bigger impact on the lives of people than these drugs. Nearly everyone in the modern world needs a car, and the economy couldn't even survive if cars weren't as available as they are. Think of all the transport, and all the people that rely on cars to get to work. But you don't think we should dictate what car companies can or can't ask for their machines. You don't demand that some authority steps up and dictates what price the next ferrari ought to be. These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide. That is because unlike the Pharma industry the car companies can't patent the wheel and then charge absurd amounts for their cars until someone starts building cars with treads or something. The Auto industry is forced to be competitive whereas the pharma industry gets a monopoly on whatever they create which causes problems like this.
Aah, but you see, now we have reached the crux of the problem.
I'll agree with you that the patent system is the problem, and that these sort of things happen because the patent system we currently use is ineffective and out-dated.
People here are crying about companies doing things that are perfectly legitimate, and talking about how evil big pharma is.
The argument we should be having is about reforming patent laws. Anything else is a distraction from the real problem, and doing a real disservice to the people that need/want these drugs.
Capitalism isn't the problem, not even in the slightest. The patent system, I'll agree, is broken and needs a good fixing.
So why don't we talk about the real problem? Why don't we talk about real solutions?
Because screaming "fuck the patent system" doesn't get people as excited as "fuck capitalism." For a forum that regularly prides itself as "above average" on the intellectual scale, they sure are quick to fall into the trap of populism and other such nonesense.
Focus on the real problem, discuss real solutions, that is how you fix the problem. If you get flat tire, fix the tire, don't complain that evil-auto is out to get you.
|
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
Hate the system, but that's just how it works.
Actually, the correct course of action would be to change the system. Merely hating it seems rather inefficient.
|
On October 14 2012 03:59 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:45 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 14 2012 03:39 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:34 FreakyDroid 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. Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is. I would argue cars have a bigger impact on the lives of people than these drugs. Nearly everyone in the modern world needs a car, and the economy couldn't even survive if cars weren't as available as they are. Think of all the transport, and all the people that rely on cars to get to work. But you don't think we should dictate what car companies can or can't ask for their machines. You don't demand that some authority steps up and dictates what price the next ferrari ought to be. These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide. That is because unlike the Pharma industry the car companies can't patent the wheel and then charge absurd amounts for their cars until someone starts building cars with treads or something. The Auto industry is forced to be competitive whereas the pharma industry gets a monopoly on whatever they create which causes problems like this. Aah, but you see, now we have reached the crux of the problem. I'll agree with you that the patent system is the problem, and that these sort of things happen because the patent system we currently use is ineffective and out-dated. People here are crying about companies doing things that are perfectly legitimate, and talking about how evil big pharma is. The argument we should be having is about reforming patent laws. Anything else is a distraction from the real problem, and doing a real disservice to the people that need/want these drugs. Capitalism isn't the problem, not even in the slightest. The patent system, I'll agree, is broken and needs a good fixing. So why don't we talk about the real problem? Why don't we talk about real solutions? Because screaming "fuck the patent system" doesn't get people as excited as "fuck capitalism." For a forum that regularly prides itself as "above average" on the intellectual scale, they sure are quick to fall into the trap of populism and other such nonesense. Focus on the real problem, discuss real solutions, that is how you fix the problem. If you get flat tire, fix the tire, don't complain that evil-auto is out to get you.
Does the patent system seriously cause a 15-20x hike in cost for re-branding? O.o
|
On October 14 2012 03:57 Griefer 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? I don't... I just... How... People are really this evil? You were lucky enough to not have a seriously debilitating disease that's ruining your life, and you're defending companies who are rorting the poor of a chance of easing their suffering so directors and investors can add an extra few mansions to their portfolio? Seriously...
People in general are evil, think about it; you wouldn't kill someone to save your self? If no that because your at home in your neutral mind set. Put in the correct situation tho...
|
On October 14 2012 04:08 Kazahk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:57 Griefer 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? I don't... I just... How... People are really this evil? You were lucky enough to not have a seriously debilitating disease that's ruining your life, and you're defending companies who are rorting the poor of a chance of easing their suffering so directors and investors can add an extra few mansions to their portfolio? Seriously... People in general are evil, think about it; you wouldn't kill someone to save your self? If no that because your at home in your neutral mind set. Put in the correct situation tho...
If people in general are evil then we must have a bad definition for evil.
|
On October 14 2012 04:08 Kazahk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:57 Griefer 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? I don't... I just... How... People are really this evil? You were lucky enough to not have a seriously debilitating disease that's ruining your life, and you're defending companies who are rorting the poor of a chance of easing their suffering so directors and investors can add an extra few mansions to their portfolio? Seriously... People in general are evil, think about it; you wouldn't kill someone to save your self? If no that because your at home in your neutral mind set. Put in the correct situation tho...
How is it evil to try to stay alive? Worst. Example. Ever..
|
On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sounds like good business. Every other company does the same thing, only fair Big Pharma gets a piece.
|
On October 14 2012 03:24 Eisregen wrote:I remember one interview on german TV where a speaker of a pharma company openly admitted that most of tthe foreign product (e.g. out of China etc.) has the same active ingredient, meaning that tehre is absolutely no difference but a massive price difference :D That guy got fired really fast xD + Show Spoiler [German Video] +
well this was actually no accident, its common knowledge.
these products are called generic drugs and the only weapon for a pharma company to prevent this and keep their research costs covered are international patents. dont forget that these companies often spent billions for researching such drugs over the years and its only fair that the production of generic drugs are forbidden for 10-15 years in most countries by law.
thats of course bad for third world countries where people often dont have the money to afford these meds.
in case of HIV the prophylaxis would with "Truvada" at the moment costs over 10.000€ per year for a single human. thats not even affordable for western countries, the costs for treatment of people already diseased with HIV are even a bit higher.
you have to see the point that pharma companies often have high research costs for meds that in the end dont hit the market, this money is lost then. so they have to build up reserves to cover that, too. thats why these copanies cant just sell meds for prices to only cover the research.
they even cant just sell these meds cheaper in third world countries, because they would just get reimported then.
these companies would just not be able to keep their research up when they would be forced to sell their meds cheaper.
thats the brutal truth.
the only thing western countries can do is buy meds for these countries as donation, but people are really egoistic when it comes to their own tax money. not the pharma companies, but even me and you.
its easy to mark the pharma companies as bad guys who should pay, but reality shows its face when the people should give their own money as charitable donations.
on a global scope life is still a fight for survival, even in these times of appearent abundance.
|
So maybe the reason they are increasing the price is they believe the demand for the drug will increase greatly due these recent findings in MS treatment. Before people reported that the drug also works in MS there was less demand for the drug, so Genzyme charged less for what they produced. Now they predict a lot more people will want to buy their drug, so why shouldn't they sell it at a higher price? It isn't price gouging.
When more time passes the drug will be made in generic form, which will drive the price down.
Also, with regard to "ethics vs, business..." The company is not driven by the same moral obligation to heal that doctors and hospitals are driven by.
|
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it.
|
I wouldn't place everything sorely on the heads of one aspect of this gigantic monstrosity we call the healthcare industry. The whole thing is a mess. Big Pharm jacks prices because R&D has a ridiculous cost attached to it before a drug even hits the market (many of them don't so wasted investment). If the US had proper insurance that wasn't so bloated and was universal then prices of drugs wouldn't matter much.
|
On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it.
Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug.
|
On October 14 2012 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it. Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug.
But this drug can't be on patent, it's been around over 20 years.
|
On October 14 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it. Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug. But this drug can't be on patent, it's been around over 20 years.
From what I remember, it involves changing something really minor about the drug, and repatenting the "new and improved" drug.
Rinse and repeat every five years.
|
On October 14 2012 04:02 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
Hate the system, but that's just how it works. Actually, the correct course of action would be to change the system. Merely hating it seems rather inefficient.
Sure, that's what everyone wants to do, but honestly good luck with getting off of the market system as it is without changing many things. The United States isn't a pure capitalist system, of course, as there is a government that implements regulations, but good luck getting them to make pharmacy a public or quasipublic good (or something along those lines). The government is there to fix market failures, among other things, and there are no massive market failures in pharmacy that need to be addressed. It could be argued that the privatization of pharmacy is a driving force of innovation in drug research etc.
People pay the price they're willing to pay for goods and services (or the range thereof). Supplies want to maximize their producer surplus and consumers want to maximize their consumer surplus, and if there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter, they just won't consume the goods or services. But they basically are. Clearly it's an extremely complicated system with many more factors going into it, but in a nutshell, it's just the market system, and good luck getting off of that at the moment.
In any event, you haven't seen inefficient until you've seen a government try to mess with capitalism and try to fix stuff.
|
On October 14 2012 04:22 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it. Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug. But this drug can't be on patent, it's been around over 20 years. From what I remember, it involves changing something really minor about the drug, and repatenting the "new and improved" drug. Rinse and repeat every five years.
So then the old drug without the minor change is still off patent and can still be produced.
|
On October 14 2012 04:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:
So then the old drug without the minor change is still off patent and can still be produced.
Technically, yes.Realistically. no.
But I forget the mechanism behind that.
|
I'm just speculating here after reading more about the drug, but here's what I got so far.
Alemtuzumab's was first mentioned in a publication in 1992 (first known as CAMPATH-1H). Now, in the US the patent lasts for 20years starting from the time before clinical trials. Now, 20years from then is 2012, which seems like an appropriate time for this company to "renew" their patent another 20 years. This is probably the underlying reason why Genzyme waited so long to rebrand the drug even after the discovery of its use as an off-label drug for MS.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this isn't a new phenomena and has been done before.
|
Isn't Genzyme that company that said that it had a cancer cure before they had even confirmed the results of their now-disproven study?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
