Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Drug Companies are Sitting on Generics—43% of Recently Approved Aren’t for Sale

posted by martyb on Sunday February 10 2019, @01:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-greed dept.

upstart writes:

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Drug companies are sitting on generics—43% of recently approved aren't for sale

Of the more than 1,600 generic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since January of 2017, more than 700—or 43 percent—are not for sale in the US, according to a new analysis by Kaiser Health News.

The finding means that many pricy, brand-name drugs are not facing the competition that could help drive down soaring prices. Among the drugs missing in action are generic versions of the expensive blood thinner Brilinta and the HIV medication Truvada. Moreover, of the approved drugs that would offer a brand-name drug its first competition, 36 percent are being held off the market, the analysis found.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Drug Companies are Sitting on Generics—43% of Recently Approved Aren’t for Sale | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 48 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday February 11 2019, @07:00AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Monday February 11 2019, @07:00AM (#799420)

    Weirdest of all was radically different prices for the same things. For 3 $2 bags of saline solution for which the hospital charged $307 each, insurance adjusted them to $150, $64, and $27 respectively. I wanted to know how that was not a mistake, and no one could explain it. It's their business to know, and they didn't. On 3 different calls to insurance, got 3 different wrong explanations by call center flunkies who pretended they knew.

    I think in a lot of cases, they overcharge so they can negotiate down, and to try to cover some of the costs of indigent people who don't have anything they can collect. At least they provided medical care, though. Your insurance, though, all they do is have a computer spit out random numbers and then justify them with bad explanations.*

    The light was improperly timed, and I brought along proof of that. The judge wouldn't even look at my evidence, it was outside the scope of the hearing, and ruled against me. Said that I could pursue the matter of improper timing in municipal court.

    Seems like this is exactly the kind of thing local news is good at exposing, especially since they sometimes have to look for stories that aren't already all over the Internet already.

    * Maybe it was a buy-one, get the next two cheap sale-ine.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2