SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:56PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:42PM (3 children)
Fffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuccckk that.
A right can be protected simply because one person sees another person being mistreated and stands up for them. In the moment. There's no need for some divine right of kings leviathan to descend from heaven and mandate it. That's some serious authoritarian bullshit.
Where there are power structures, we all should demand they protect the rights of all people, because that's where abuse is most likely to come from, but there's no need for a better protecting their lesser like a goddamn questing paladin following a chivalric code. That's how a child reasons.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:54PM (2 children)
Nope. You are using a US-biased version of the word which has no historical (by which I mean over a timespan of the development of the language, four times as ong as your laughably brief "US history") support. Having said that, there are explicit examples of how out of touch your view is in your own brief history: would the "rights" in the Bill of Rights have been "rights" if they weren't explicitly listed in the Bill or Rights? Play a little game before responding, try to guess what my response will be to both a "yes", and a "no", answer (it's a yes/no question).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 20 2020, @03:17PM (1 child)
That's a meaningless and nearly incoherent jumping from idea to idea without a central point.
The right to marry who you choose is a universally recognized right within this country. Not listed in the bill of rights, implicitly understood to be true(though some fought stupidly long about whether it applied to gay people), and has jack shit to do with the right being granted by a superior.
Your worldview sucks.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 21 2020, @09:42AM
> universally ... within this country
So, across the whole universe.
But only in one country.
That's a pretty big plank blocking your vision.
Also, consider what you have implied by your use of the phrase "it applied" in your prior post.
> Your worldview sucks.
I have made no statements at all about my worldview. I have made provably factual statements about language, and fairly standard (e.g. Bentham, Mill) statements from the field of the philosophy of rights. The mere fact that you think I've said anything about my worldview shows that your handle on this site is woefully inaccurate.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves