EPTMS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
sushiko
197 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:24 acker wrote: Technically, yes.Realistically. no. But I forget the mechanism behind that. I believe if you license the drug under a different name, it qualifies as a new discovery and under a different patent. | ||
|
achan1058
1091 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:24 acker wrote: Technically, yes.Realistically. no. But I forget the mechanism behind that. Actually I don't see why not, seeing how there are many generic drugs out there. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:29 sushiko wrote: I believe if you license the drug under a different name, it qualifies as a new discovery and under a different patent. That's absurd. No way that is true. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:29 sushiko wrote: I believe if you license the drug under a different name, it qualifies as a new discovery and under a different patent. Absolutely not. That would clearly defeat the point of the patent system. Brands have nothing to do with it. They are merely a method of recognition to consumers to associate the particular brand with quality. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
A) The drug can still be produced off-patent and this thread is pointless sensationalism. B) There is some horrible, nonsensical government patent law that should be getting our attention instead of the "evil corporation." | ||
|
PVJ
Hungary5221 Posts
On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote: 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? are you out of your damn mind? how can you compare a disease fucking killing you to traveling? or are you just doing it for the shit and giggles. Actually bread and a lot of necessities like that are regulated by governments through laws, and health care should not be put on the same level as any product of the entertainment industry. I for one think no one is trying to dictate the creators but, on the other hand, pointing out that they are dictating prices to irrational levels which is putting people at risk. It's the greed that's disgusting not that they would like to profit. (I wouldn't think they were selling it with net losses beforehand either.) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote: B) There is some horrible, nonsensical government patent law that should be getting our attention instead of the "evil corporation." Sure. It's silly to expect a corporation to act ethically. In fact, joint stock companies are structurally prohibited from acting ethically. We should always assume that corporations will as unethically as possible, both in terms of legal actions and in terms of dodging enforcement. The problem is intellectual property. | ||
|
sushiko
197 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Why is it unethical to profit from medicine again? It isn't. Read Big Pharma by Ben Goldacre to clearly understand what is unethical. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/21/drugs-industry-scandal-ben-goldacre Here's an excerpt from the book. Not much can be applied to this situation from this excerpt, but I think understanding how big pharma operates is very important in assessing ethics vs profits vs law. It's how you profit that draws the line between ethical and unethical. And to clarify, unethical behavior can be completely legal. In my opinion, Genezyme is just practicing good business. Ethically, pulling the drug now is a dickmove to put it blunt as it limits the accessibility for patients. The title makes the issue be more about costs, but to me, its about restricting drug access right now because of its off-label use. Pulling the drug might have something to do with preventing generics being made (if patent expired). | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On October 14 2012 03:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: 15 to 20 times more expensive? if the drug is profitable now (which I do not know) the profit margins on it after this price hike will be higher than movie theatre popcorn. I can not beleive it would cost THAT much to have it re-licensed, maybe 3-4 times but 20 just seems absurd. The whole drug has to be rebranded, it needs new trials, they have to brace themselves for lawsuits, and they probably have some fun patent stuff to work out. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new drug. Yes, it's going to make it much more expensive. And if you're not ok with it being 20x more expensive is there a multiple that would make you happy? I have a hunch that most people are pissy that it's more expensive period, they don't know enough about drug manufacture and development to really bitch about the multiple. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
A lot of people here don't know how the pharmaceutical industry works. It takes around 12 years and $1 billion to bring a drug to market. When you pay for a drug, you aren't paying for the material, you are paying for all the failed drugs that they tested along the way. Pharmaceutical companies invest massive amount of money into incredibly long term plans by business standards. This high risk environment is why you pay so much for drugs. On average when a drug target is identified they must screen up to 1 million different chemical compounds to get that "hit". From there they mave have up to 1000 "lead" molecules. Then they optimize that lead and may end up with 10-200 compounds. From there they submit maybe 5 to preclinical trials. Then a few of those might make it to the enormously expensive clinical trials. If the drug fails at this point then the company could take a hit of hundreds of millions of dollars lost. The reality is that over 95% of pharmaceutical projects fail. So lets say a pharmaceutical company has brought a drug to market after over a decade and almost a billion dollars. They want to see maximum return on their risky investment, and that means they have a few options: 1) Repackage it with another drug to give some sort of synergistic effect. 2) Change the enantiomeric composition of the drug. Drugs are often "chiral" meaning their mirror images are different and will give different biological effects. 3) Change the method of administration (inhaler, injection, etc). The catch? In order to patent ANY of these changes the drug company must once again go through the rigorous process of drug validation by government regulators. Contrary to the popular belief here that these companies can just slap on a new label and make more money, they must demonstrate that this "new" drug gives some sort of enhanced therapeutic effect. And of course they would pursue this. They have just invested a billion dollars in this drug when they had no idea if it would actually work out. You want to complain about drug companies? Fine. But at least understand WHY they do what they do. It is mostly related to the enormous amounts of money they must spend to bring a drug to market, meaning once they get a blockbuster drug they (rightfully) milk it for all its worth. If you take away their ability to make money on their high risk investment then they may not be able to make any new drugs in the first place. Should the government maybe have a larger hand in pharmaceuticals to ensure adequate supply of unprofitable drugs? Sure, I would be thrilled with that. But I don't think we should meddle with the pharmaceutical industry. They are a business like any other, and just because they make drugs doesn't mean they are uniquely required to be charitable with their products. If the alternative is that no drugs get made at all, I'd rather have the current system. I got this little bit saved I read on a random forum a long while back when I was interested in this kind of stuff. It's very enlightening honestly. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes Here's the problem | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
I'd love to hear your solution. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
Aint saying if it's good or bad, just saying how it is. The system is fucked up, it's not the corporations fault though. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:44 Fruscainte wrote: Aint saying if it's good or bad, just saying how it is. The system is fucked up, it's not the corporations fault though. LIFE is fucked up, not the system. Life is what gives people deadly and horrible diseases. The fact that we have a system which is capable of dealing with a large number of these is a good thing. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Well, identifying a problem has validity independent of proposing a solution. But I'd like to see government directly involved in the development of pharmaceuticals. Crazy, I know. edit: the fact that drugs get advertised is also a major problem related to our free market system of pharma | ||
|
sushiko
197 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Absolutely not. That would clearly defeat the point of the patent system. Brands have nothing to do with it. They are merely a method of recognition to consumers to associate the particular brand with quality. Not true for drug IP. Patents are there so that the company that invested millions/billions into research are able to recoup the costs without competition. Licensing a new drug for a different target, albeit with essentially the same components, is enough to extend the patent. Might not be 20year patent, but it can and has been done. Pfizer and GSK has done it, don't have the sources on hand but I'm sure a quick google search will yield something. I'm not an expert on this, so perhaps I'm not understanding it fully. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:40 Klondikebar wrote: The whole drug has to be rebranded, it needs new trials, they have to brace themselves for lawsuits, and they probably have some fun patent stuff to work out. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new drug. Yes, it's going to make it much more expensive. And if you're not ok with it being 20x more expensive is there a multiple that would make you happy? I have a hunch that most people are pissy that it's more expensive period, they don't know enough about drug manufacture and development to really bitch about the multiple. With the rebranding, can they repatent? If not, why are they going through the trouble of rebranding? I mean if it costs so much money that they are forced to increase the price 20x and its already been on the market for 20 years... why would they do that? Surely generics will be on their way in a short time. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 14 2012 04:48 TheRabidDeer wrote: With the rebranding, can they repatent? If not, why are they going through the trouble of rebranding? I mean if it costs so much money that they are forced to increase the price 20x and its already been on the market for 20 years... why would they do that? Surely generics will be on their way in a short time. Yes, that's the point, they don't want the generics. They can take an off-label use and make it on-label, resetting the clock. That's what this is about. | ||
|
Zenbrez
Canada5973 Posts
| ||
| ||
