|
On October 14 2012 04:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:On October 14 2012 03:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 14 2012 03:29 Klondikebar wrote:
Did people read the story? It's currently prescribed off label for MS which can lead to a lot of regulatory snafu's. They are getting another license for it so it can legally be prescribed for MS which is an EXPENSIVE process. They have to withdraw it for now because any adverse event with the drug can really hurt their chances of getting the license.
It's expensive because of lawyers. Not morally bankrupt pharmacists. 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. 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.
Because currently, when it's prescribed for MS it's technically illegal. It needs to be rebranded so patients can legally use it. If it didn't go through the rebranding then using the generic for that purpose would still be iffy legally I believe.
|
Why illegal? Off-label uses are not illegal... (are they?!)
|
On October 14 2012 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem I'd love to hear your solution. 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.
I had a feeling that was the solution. So billions of dollars in investment courtesy of taxpayers, and then if the drug is a success we... sell it at a loss? And if the drug is NOT a success, we simply lose billions?
It can certainly work to SOME degree, but the problem as always is that there is no real accountability and nothing to prevent waste on an absolutely massive scale. Business has a profit incentive to not waste billions on what is likely but not guaranteed to be a dead end. It's about efficiency, as much as people hate that term.
Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically?
On October 14 2012 04:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Why illegal? Off-label uses are not illegal... (are they?!)
No, I don't think it's illegal. It's a very common practice with tons of drugs.
|
On October 14 2012 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem I'd love to hear your solution. 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
Let me say I'm personally for a lot more government intervention in a lot of sectors, but the last thing I want is the bureaucratic nightmare that is the United States government getting their hands on the drug industry. Developing drugs is a massive investment that may, in most cases, give absolutely no returns and be a money sink. I'd rather billionaires burn their money doing it than me spending tax dollars for the government to do it.
However, perhaps the government could subsidize the private companies so they can produce these drugs at a lower cost and then sell them at a subsequently lower cost.
|
This isn't really unheard of 20 times is a bit much but it's not totally unheard of to have one medicine cost alot more then the same medicine it's just used for another purpose, esp when dealing with insurance. Really drug companies pull alot of bullshit esp with slight changes to their formulas in order to prevent generics and hold onto patents for a couple more years. They are also known to not research cures but treatment plans, unless a cure can be milked for a long period of time. They are also known to once a patent isn't held on their name brand drug they pull back production and introduce into the market a similar drug and say it's better even if it's ever so slight.
|
On October 14 2012 04:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically?
Because of intellectual property law...
|
On October 14 2012 04:50 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem I'd love to hear your solution. 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 Let me say I'm personally for a lot more government intervention in a lot of sectors, but the last thing I want is the bureaucratic nightmare that is the United States government getting their hands on the drug industry. Developing drugs is a massive investment that may, in most cases, give absolutely no returns and be a money sink. I'd rather billionaires burn their money doing it than me spending tax dollars for the government to do it. However, perhaps the government could subsidize the private companies so they can produce these drugs at a lower cost and then sell them at a subsequently lower cost.
Yeah, whenever I talk about government doing things I'm not talking about our failing state doing things. I mean more theoretically. Should have been more clear. I think you could invent a system that would work better. I don't necessarily mean the government does everything directly and assumes all risk (@JD)
|
On October 14 2012 04:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically? Because of intellectual property law...
The drug is OFF PATENT!!!
If they repatent it, it has to be a different drug in some way. The old drug is still off patent. You can't just perpetually repatent the same exact chemical.
|
On October 14 2012 04:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically? Because of intellectual property law...
Except nobody explained why they can't produce the old drug generically and continue to use it "off-label".
|
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused.
|
On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough.
Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you?
Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it.
|
On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused.
We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product.
|
Ok, well, false alarm I guess. If anybody needs me I'll be in my cave planning the revolution.
|
On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product.
This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the re-branded drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely?
|
On October 14 2012 04:58 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product. This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely?
Maybe, but for example they can get the brand drug on insurance formularies (most importantly, medicare, which costs us money) rather than the generic off-label one and charge more for it. Pharma is definitely one place where markets are not rational even a little bit.
|
On October 14 2012 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:58 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product. This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely? Maybe, but for example they can get the brand drug on insurance formularies (most importantly, medicare, which costs us money) rather than the generic off-label one and charge more for it. Pharma is definitely one place where markets are not rational even a little bit.
If medicare pays for brand name instead of generics... I will be confused and angry..
|
On October 14 2012 05:02 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:58 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product. This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely? Maybe, but for example they can get the brand drug on insurance formularies (most importantly, medicare, which costs us money) rather than the generic off-label one and charge more for it. Pharma is definitely one place where markets are not rational even a little bit. If medicare pays for brand name instead of generics... I will be confused and angry..
I tutored a student recently for her pharmaceutical ethics class (knew nothing about it, just read her teacher's notes and explained them, the girl was a bit slow), and there is all kinds of shady shit that goes on the way insurance works. This is related to the fact that the US has extremely high administration costs for insurance compared to single-payer systems.
|
I'm definitely going to invest. Thanks for pointing out this hidden gem.
SNY just in case anyone is interested.
|
This article is written to condemn the company -_- like mentioning layoffs at the end despite protests had nothing to do with the article even... and that comes from a whole host of other reasons
ok so a few things that I want clarified like is the drug off patent for leukemia; in that case yes its 20x more expensive, but generics sell for significantly less than the original price of the drug. even if it isn't off patent its probably not a blockbuster drug because it probably is just another drug used in cocktails. The point being that the original price of Lemtrada is not exceptionally high such that 20x the price would put it above the range of prices that drugs on patents will sell for.
consider this: the average cost to develop a drug is 800 million to 2 billion dollars. ok make the pharmaceuticals stop abusing the system. maybe you can help pitch in the 2 billion. And thats only the successful drugs. Billions more are spent in drug discovery and clinical trials. Most drugs fizzle. So every drug that comes out has a double handful more brethern that tens to hundreds of millions was spent on. So maybe you want to give a hand in the pharma business now.
And what they are doing is patenting the use of the drug for MS. And that entails costly clinical trials and various regulatory procedures that ensures that the drug is sold legally for MS. Again they could do this out of the kindness of their hearts but they already sank a billion dollars developing it.
you think that big pharma is raking in cash whereas its actually in a pretty trying period right now. its really easy to look at the price of the pills and not actually appreciate how much investment is into it. its like telling apple to give away free phones because the iphone will make peoples lives better.
what all you outraged peopel should be looking at is healthcare reform...
|
On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it.
You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
