Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the identical-drug-Synacthen-in-Canada-costs-about-$33 dept.

Television station WSB-TV 2 in Atlanta, Georgia reports Metro city sues drug manufacturer over '97,500% price increase' for seizure medicine:

The city of Marietta, Georgia is suing drug manufacturer Mallinckrodt after Mallinckrodt increased the price of the drug Acthar by 97,500%.

"Acthar used to cost $40, but Mallinckrodt has raised the price of the drug to over $39,000 per vial," the city claims in its lawsuit. "This eye-popping 97,500% price increase is the result of unlawful and unfair conduct by Mallinckrondt. The City has expended over $2 million for just one patient covered by the city's self-funded health plan."

Atlanta pharmacist Ira Katz said Acthar is what's called a "biologic" and they can be classified as specialty drugs.

"They put them into the specialty class, and the prices are outrageous, just outrageous," Katz said.

The company sent a response to the station's request for comment. In part, it states:

In 2017, Mallinckrodt specifically offered to work with representatives for the City of Marietta in response to inquiries the City had made about the price of Acthar. The City declined to meaningfully participate in that process.

"Mallinckrodt acquired Acthar in August 2014, well after the price increase you reference in 2007 was undertaken by Questcor, the previous owner of Acthar. Under our stewardship, any price adjustments to Acthar have been limited to the mid-single digit percentage range. We want to help ensure patients have access to and can benefit from our therapies. That's why we offer significant discounts to many payers and customers, which the prior owner did not. Additionally, Mallinckrodt offers a range of robust free drug and commercial copay assistance options for patients, in compliance with applicable laws.

Apparently, there is a long history of complaints about the pricing for Acthar. See, for example, this December 2016 story in The New York Times. Here's another where CBS' 60 Minutes did an investigation. Then there are these two June 2018 stories from CNN. The focus of the first story is an overview of this drug's price and history. The second story has as its focus the impact on a single child and his family.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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: 5, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:42AM (22 children)

    by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:42AM (#959482)

    Free market competition is part of capitalism, yet it's clearly absent in this case. That drug is obsolete for its intended purpose but ended up effective for treating unrelated condition somehow. So they reclassified it as niche and increased price by 100000%. Since its mechanism for working is unknown it is hard to establish meaningful competition for now. Eventually generics will appear and other alternatives will be discovered dropping the price but for now this leads to delays in treatment. So the core issue is monopoly, I find it hard to believe that a drug made from some hormones extracted from pigs would cost so much without it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:50AM (18 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:50AM (#959483) Journal

    Free market competition is part of capitalism, yet it's clearly absent in this case. That drug is obsolete for its intended purpose but ended up effective for treating unrelated condition somehow. So they reclassified it as niche and increased price by 100000%.

    Absent, you say. Somehow, you say.

    The translation: "if there's no opportunity to profit, then it doesn't matter if the drug (mysteriously and without doubt) does help some and the cost producing it is small**, capitalism is not going to bother to do something. Because, you know?, profit or GTFO".

    ** see the dept line

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:01AM (13 children)

      by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:01AM (#959486)

      Capitalism by itself is more of religious doctrine than anything else. It's widely known that efficiency and growth of market economy is driven by competition leading to dropping price and disruptive innovation. Yet also it's seen as part of capitalism to see it desirable to become a rich monopolist/oligarch. Those two ideas are inherently contradictory so would be out of place in a serious science. Yet it's just how religion works.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:45AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:45AM (#959494) Journal

        It's widely known that efficiency and growth of market economy is driven by competition leading to dropping price and disruptive innovation.

        Argued but not proven - yes, I think I can see the point of capitalism is sort of a system of beliefs.
        It's not like the wellbeing is necessarily driven only but the efficiency (thus competition) and not like competition alone guarantees efficiency.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @01:53PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @01:53PM (#959512)

        what you say is correct. unfortunatly capitalist aren't stupid and know this too.
        so to avoid competition a capitalist will try to use the clubbermint to protect "unfair competition".
        if all goes well for the capitalist, that is the ties between capitalist and clubbermint are good, we end up with faschism.
        the capitalist "suggests" laws and policies (for a kickback fee) to the "elected" clubbermint.
        if the ties are abit dodgy then we get clubbermint owned and run so-called public companies (the logic being that clubbermint is public thus for profit companies owned by clubbermint are public) that belong to the treasury and are run for profit ... turning the clubbermint into one big self governed corporation...

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:15PM (3 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:15PM (#959627) Journal

          so to avoid competition a capitalist will try to use the clubbermint to protect "unfair competition".

          Simply buying the competition is much easier.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:15PM (2 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:15PM (#959685) Journal

            Simply buying the competition is much easier.

            Mallinckrodt did exactly that already. They bought the rights to a cheaper synthetic and shelved it.

            The problem is that any new player in the market will have to treat the decision as if the market price will be somewhere below $40/vial (about where it would fall once even basic competition gets started). But without that second source, the price is a thousand times that.

            That's the perfect case for government intervention, but it stands on the sidelines singing "Free Market Uber Alles" in spite of the lack of an effective market in this case.

            • (Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Thursday February 20 2020, @07:50PM (1 child)

              by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Thursday February 20 2020, @07:50PM (#960419)

              Hmmm ... well billionaire douchebags like Bill G. could open a 501(c) for these kinds of cases. He's already heavy into pharma and IP ...

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 21 2020, @12:09AM

                by sjames (2882) on Friday February 21 2020, @12:09AM (#960506) Journal

                But he hasn't. And neither has anyone else.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:18PM (3 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:18PM (#959518) Homepage
        Those statements are no more contradictory than "gravity causes rivers to flow" and "gravity causes lakes to form" are contradictory.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:01PM (2 children)

          by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:01PM (#959609)

          This analogy is flawed since my original point was about underlying moral imperative of people, not about laws of physics that determine which actions are within realm of possibility. Which you prefer to exist? Competitive market or single monolithic structure with you doing all decisions directly or indirectly? This is two totally different worldviews and if you think that as soon as you achieve dominant position by taking advantage of the free market any rational need for said free market magically disappears then your worldview is bordering on solipsism. Yet this is how goals of a business are seen by most people nowadays, at least on ideological level.

          • (Score: 1, Redundant) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 19 2020, @09:45AM (1 child)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday February 19 2020, @09:45AM (#959832) Homepage
            Which do I prefer, flowing rivers, or giant placid lakes? I prefer you reread my post, and try to understand the wisdom contained within.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:29AM

              by loonycyborg (6905) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:29AM (#959836)

              Well then you can consider capitalism to be about flooding entire earth to become one big ocean while extolling relative benefits of lakes and rivers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:33PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:33PM (#959522)

        Capitalism doesn't seems to be operating as a free market in this case as it operates on a state mandated monopoly through patents. No one is allowed to compete. If that system is undesireable, it would require adjusting the system. In my experience capitalism is not really good at progress in itself. The areas that make progress seems to be those that a state drops a pile of money on, either making companies fight as a flock of pirahnas to get the cash or a company is selected as the best candidate in a competing bid. If you want things done, capitalism seems to have no effect on that, but only serve as the machine performing tasks, the initiative comes from the state or in effect society for those who have negative connotation on the word state and government, justified or not. I think disruptive is a myth and at best a confusing concept. If we consentrate it down to someone who finds a more efficient way of doing things, that's great and it's how things always worked in competition, but as I've seen the word distruptive used it's a random ideafactory wasting a lot of resources.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 19 2020, @12:38AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @12:38AM (#959718) Journal

          Capitalism doesn't seems to be operating as a free market in this case as it operates on a state mandated monopoly through patents.

          FYI, the synthesis and safety of adrenocorticotropic hormone [wikipedia.org] (which is the active substance in Acthar and Synacthen) is no longer under the protection of a patent, nor does it need to pass the FDA certification.
          So, in this particular case:
          - no patent monopoly
          - no high barrier of entry to justify increased prices to cover the certification cost.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:28PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:28PM (#959636) Journal

        It's widely known that efficiency and growth of market economy is driven by competition leading to dropping price and disruptive innovation. Yet also it's seen as part of capitalism to see it desirable to become a rich monopolist/oligarch. Those two ideas are inherently contradictory so would be out of place in a serious science.

        Only if the two ideas were held by the same sincere being. Welcome to conflicts of interest.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:54PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:54PM (#959551) Journal

      Absent, you say. Somehow, you say.

      Amazing how that works right? No competition - crazy prices. It'll like a pattern or something.

      "if there's no opportunity to profit, then it doesn't matter if the drug (mysteriously and without doubt) does help some and the cost producing it is small**, capitalism is not going to bother to do something. Because, you know?, profit or GTFO".

      Makes you wonder why there isn't an opportunity for profit by anyone else when someone is selling a drug for 3 orders of magnitude more than it costs to manufacture. Guess US regulators (and perhaps others in the world) are protecting us from cheap, less profitable medicines.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:42PM (#959617)

      It's nice that GTFO here has a concrete value: move to Canada.

      Maybe I should try that before being prescribed something that cost's ~annual-salary/dose ...

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:57PM (1 child)

      by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @10:57PM (#959697)

      Just a reminder for all our brainwashed citizens - the US is not a free market capitalist economy!

      Pure market capitalism only operates with homogeneous products, identical location, buyers and sellers having perfect knowledge of the market conditions, equal access to resources for suppliers etc

      Things that exist in the US that distort Market Capitalism are:

      • Advertising/Marketing
      • Store locations
      • Patents
      • Copyright
      • EULAs, other customer agreements etc
      • Regulations (health regs, import laws, different state taxes, etc)

      The existence of any of these elements distorts the 'perfect market', meaning that you can't just rely on self-regulation.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 19 2020, @12:43AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @12:43AM (#959722) Journal

        Just a reminder for all our brainwashed citizens - the US is not a free market capitalist economy!

        Just as a reminder for whoever is tempted by the idea of a "free-market capitalist economy" - it is an utopia, pretty much in the same category as communism.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:21PM (2 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:21PM (#959615) Journal

    It's beyond that. The manufacturer bought the rights to a synthetic equivalent with the intent to shelve it in order to maintain the monopoly. The courts ordered them to license those rights. Somehow still nobody is competing in spite of a ready opportunity for a high margin product.

    The problem is that it would be high margin but low demand.

    It is quite simply a corner case where market forces are ineffective. We can either recognize that and fix it, or we can continue to beat ourselves over the head with our own ideology.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:16PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:16PM (#959628)

      If someone competed, they would drop the price again and undercut their competitors until they went under. Then the price would be raised once again. Thus there's no point to licensing those rights as you'll be going bankrupt right after you sell your first batch.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:40PM

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:40PM (#959639) Journal

        Right. Thus my comment that it's time to admit that Capitalism isn't all things to everyone, the ultimate panacea. This is one of those corner cases that needs another answer.