Medicine that costs $1 to make raised in price from $13.50 to $750.00
The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%. Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August.
CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments. The drug is used treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems.
After Turning's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750. The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution.
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised By Over 50 Times
BBC is reporting on a massive price hike of an essential drug used by AIDS patients:
The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%. Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August. CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments.
The drug is used treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems. After Turning's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750. The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution. "We needed to turn a profit on this drug," Mr Shkreli told Bloomberg TV. "The companies before us were just giving it away almost." On Twitter, Mr Shkreli mocked several users who questioned the company's decision, calling one reporter "a moron".
Why not switch to a generic pyrimethamine tablet? They don't exist right now, according to the New York Times (story includes examples of other recent price hikes):
With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim's distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.
The switch from drugstores to controlled distribution was made in June by Impax, not by Turing. Still, controlled distribution was a strategy Mr. Shkreli talked about at his previous company as a way to thwart generics.
The drug is also used to treat malaria and appears on the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. Toxoplasmosis infections are a feline gift to the world.
Related Stories
Well, that didn't take long at all. Drug CEO Will Lower Price of Daraprim After Hike Sparked Outrage.
Daraprim was previously discussed on SoylentNews today.
I'd still like to see a good generic alternative become available so that this can't happen again.
takyon: Also at BBC. Martin Shkreli has not said how much the price will be cut, and is planning to make his Twitter account private, according to NBC. Daraprim's chemical name is Pyrimethamine, aka 5-(4-Chlorophenyl)-6-(diethoxymethyl)-2,4-pyrimidinediamine.
Discussion from a September SoylentNews article.
From the Chicago Tribune:
Stepping into the furor over eye-popping price spikes for old generic medicines, a maker of compounded drugs will begin selling $1 doses of Daraprim, whose price recently was jacked up to $750 per pill by Turing Pharmaceuticals.
San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc., which mixes approved drug ingredients to fill individual patient prescriptions, said Thursday it will supply capsules containing Daraprim's active ingredients, pyrimethamine and leucovorin, for $99 for a 100-capsule bottle, via its website.
The 3 1/2-year-old drug compounding firm also plans to start making inexpensive versions of other generic drugs whose prices have skyrocketed, Chief Executive Mark Baum told The Associated Press.
"We are looking at all of these cases where the sole-source generic companies are jacking the price way up," Baum said in an interview. "There'll be many more of these" compounded drugs coming in the near future.
The high price of prescription medicines in the U.S. — from drugs for cancer and rare diseases that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year down to once-cheap generic drugs now costing many times their old price — has become a hot issue in the 2016 presidential race.
News that Turing, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. and other drugmakers have bought rights to old, cheap medicines that are the only treatment for serious diseases and then hiked prices severalfold has angered patients. It's triggered government investigations, politicians' proposals to fight "price gouging," heavy media scrutiny and a big slump in biotech stock prices.
Well, that certainly didn't take long. At $99/100 pills, I expect the profits are slim indeed - but there is probably a profit. The company certainly can't afford to just give the stuff away.
So - if one company can show a profit at $1/pill, how in hell does anyone justify selling the pill for hundreds of dollars?
Paul Buchheit reports via AlterNet
While Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and John Kiriakou are vilified for revealing vital information about spying and bombing and torture, a man who conspired with Goldman Sachs to make billions of dollars on the planned failure of subprime mortgages was honored by New York University for his "Outstanding Contributions to Society".
This is one example of the distorted thinking leading to the demise of a once-vibrant American society. There are other signs of decay:
- A House Bill Would View Corporate Crimes as "Honest Mistakes"
- Almost 2/3 of American Families Couldn't Afford a Single Pill of a Life-Saving Drug
- Violent Crime Down; Prison Population Doubles
- One in Four Americans Suffer Mental Illness; Mental Health Facilities Cut by 90 Percent
- The Unpaid Taxes of 500 Companies Could Pay for a Job for Every Unemployed American ...for two years ...at the nation's median salary of $36,000 ...for all 8 million unemployed.
Citizens for Tax Justice reports that Fortune 500 companies are holding over $2 trillion in profits offshore to avoid taxes that would amount to over $600 billion. Our society desperately needs infrastructure repair, but 8 million potential jobs are being held hostage beyond our borders.
Previous: Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times
Martin Shkreli, the head of Turing Pharamaceutical who rose to fame by jacking up a 60-year-old generic drug's price by 5500%, has been reported to be arrested by the FBI for securities fraud.
At Bloomberg and a shorter version from NPR.
In the case that closely tracks that suit, federal prosecutors accused Shkreli of engaging in a complicated shell game after his defunct hedge fund, MSMB Capital Management, lost millions. He is alleged to have made secret payoffs and set up sham consulting arrangements. A New York lawyer, Evan Greebel, was also arrested early Thursday. He's accused of conspiring with Shkreli in part of the scheme.
Goes to show you, if you are gonna be evil, try to stay below the radar.
Previously: Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times
Drug Firm Offers $1 Version of $750 Turing Pharmaceuticals Pill
The ABC news website (an Australian national news service funded by the Australian government) reports on a group of high school students from Sydney Australia who have managed to recreate the active ingredient in Daraprim for a mere $20.
Daraprim has received a lot of coverage recently after Turing Pharmaceuticals who owns the patent, initially raised the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750.00, though they have since stated that the price will be reduced.
From the article:
For $US20, a group of high school students has created 3.7 grams of an active ingredient used in the medicine Daraprim, which would sell in the United States for between $US35,000 and $US110,000.
Pyrimethamine, the active ingredient in Daraprim, treats a parasitic infection in people with weak immune systems such as pregnant women and HIV patients.
In August 2015, the price of Daraprim in the US rose from $US13.50 per tablet to $US750 when Turing Pharmaceuticals, and its controversial then-chief executive Martin Shkreli, acquired the drug's exclusive rights and hiked up the price.
Since then, the 17-year-olds from Sydney Grammar have worked in their school laboratory to create the drug cheaply in order to draw attention to its inflated price overseas, which student Milan Leonard said was "ridiculous".
The ABC news website (an Australian national news service funded by the Australian government) reports on a group of high school students from Sydney Australia who have managed to recreate the active ingredient in Daraprim for a mere $20.
Daraprim has received a lot of coverage recently after Turing Pharmaceuticals who owns the patent, initially raised the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750.00, though they have since stated that the price will be reduced.
From the article:
For $US20, a group of high school students has created 3.7 grams of an active ingredient used in the medicine Daraprim, which would sell in the United States for between $US35,000 and $US110,000.
Pyrimethamine, the active ingredient in Daraprim, treats a parasitic infection in people with weak immune systems such as pregnant women and HIV patients.
In August 2015, the price of Daraprim in the US rose from $US13.50 per tablet to $US750 when Turing Pharmaceuticals, and its controversial then-chief executive Martin Shkreli, acquired the drug's exclusive rights and hiked up the price.
Since then, the 17-year-olds from Sydney Grammar have worked in their school laboratory to create the drug cheaply in order to draw attention to its inflated price overseas, which student Milan Leonard said was "ridiculous".
His early release reflects good behavior and completion of rehabilitation programs
Infamous ex-pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli has been released from federal prison after serving less than five years of a seven-year sentence for a securities and wire fraud conviction. He is now moving into a US Bureau of Prisons halfway house at an undisclosed location in New York until September 14, 2022.
Shkreli was convicted in August 2017 on two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection to what federal prosecutors called a Ponzi-like scheme involving two hedge funds Shkreli managed. In March 2018, a federal judge sentenced him to seven years, which he was serving in minimum security federal prison in Allenwood, Pennsylvania.
His early release—slightly more than four years after his sentencing—reflects time shaved off for good behavior in prison, plus completion of education and rehabilitation programs, according to CNBC. It also includes a credit for the roughly six months he spent in jail prior to his sentencing.
Previously on SoylentNews:
United States Sells Unique Wu-Tang Clan Album Forfeited by Martin Shkreli
Judge Denies Shkreli's "Delusional Self-Aggrandizing" Plea to Get Out of Jail
Shkreli Stays in Jail; Infamous Ex-Pharma CEO Quickly Loses Appeal
Martin Shkreli Accused of Running Business From Prison With a Smuggled Smartphone
Sobbing Martin Shkreli Sentenced to 7 Years in Prison for Defrauding Investors
Britain Fines Pfizer Record £84.2m for 2600% Drug Price Hike
Daraprim Price Lowered in Response to Outrage
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times
The pharmaceutical company behind Martin Shkreli's infamous 4,000 percent price hike—now known as Vyera Pharmaceuticals—filed for bankruptcy this week and plans to sell its assets to pay off millions in debts.
In court documents filed Wednesday, Vyera's chief restructuring officer, Lawrence Perkins, largely blamed Shkreli for dooming the company and its affiliates.
[...]
Shkreli founded Vyera in 2014 under the name Turing Pharmaceuticals. His focus was to acquire sole-source drugs that treat life-threatening conditions in small populations of patients—and then dramatically jack up the price. In August 2015, he did just that, buying the rights to the decades-old anti-parasitic drug Daraprim for $55 million and abruptly raising the price from $17.60 per tablet to $750, a more than 4,000 percent increase.
[...]
Shkreli's influence wasn't shaken until January 2020, when the Federal Trade Commission and several state attorneys general sued Shkreli and the company—then called Vyera—for allegedly violating antitrust laws. Soon after, Vyera appointed a new board and management to purge ties to Shkreli. Vyera later settled the FTC's lawsuit, while Shkreli insisted on going to trial, where he lost, was banned from the pharmaceutical industry for life, and ordered to pay roughly $65 million in disgorgement. He is appealing the ruling.Meanwhile, Vyera never reversed Shkreli's price hike.
Previously:
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times 20150922
Stories mentioning Shkreli on Soylentnews 21+ stories (Famous/infamous, same dif, right?)
Related:
Martin Shkreli Launches Blockchain-Based Drug Discovery Platform 20220726
FTC: Shkreli May Have Violated Lifetime Pharma Ban, Should be Held in Contempt 20230125
Shkreli Tells Judge His Drug Discovery Software is Not for Discovering Drugs 20230215
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:36PM
Create a disease and then sell a cure. Capitalism run amok. Who here wants to bet that the US government is going to hit this company real hard and make their lives miserable in order for them to lower the price of this drug?
It is believed that Cancer was created in the laboratory and was then spread around.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:41PM
For once, even the awful conspiracy theorists like you aren't as bad as the big pharmaceutical companies you make up stories about.
Cancer is predominantly, but not exclusively, caused by mutation.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:38PM
It's all mutation, be it caused by sunlight, chemicals, viral attack, etc. The mutation is not the only step, but it is a necessary step.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:44PM
That's a more fair description of what I was trying to convey, but I thought some rare cancers are epigenetic, triggered by cell signaling rather than pure mutation.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:19PM
Whether you have a set of genes susceptible to epigenesis or not is a mutation :)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:19PM
Must resist urge to reply as if you're serious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:58PM
First, what do you mean specifically by "mutation". Second, what experiments have been published that show it is necessary. I doubt this has been done.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:32PM
Cancer has existed for thousands of years. It's the result of defective cells maintaining just enough capability to replicate and be useless.
Chemicals can make it much more common, but yeah, it's existed for forever.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:52AM
Cancer has existed for thousands of years. It's the result of defective cells maintaining just enough capability to replicate and be useless.
If cancer did not usually strike until after the reproductive age it was probably an evolutionary advantage, or at least not a disadvantage, throughout much of humanity's existence. Once someone had passed their genes on and could no longer reproduce they were competition for resources and little else. Granted, an older family member could help look after children, but certainly not all of them were needed for that. Cancer survived in general because it did not eliminate the growth part of human economies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:39PM
And, yet, we still keep hearing all this nonsense about the evils of socialized medicine and death panels who get to decide who lives and who dies.
Seriously people. If this isn't enough to convince you that capitalism no more belongs in hospitals than it does in fire or police departments or the military, then what will?
How is this even hypothetically different from the private fire departments that set fires in order to charge to put them out, the Mafia enforcers who charge protection racket money, or the mercenaries who wind up in charge after the revolution?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:58PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:03PM
With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim's distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.
I don't understand this fully; maybe there is more information in the article. So it's harder to get the samples, but I am assuming that with price hikes like this it is well worth somebody's while to make the expenditures required to get ahold of this, test it, and duplicate it and get a generic drug to the market. I can't see how "harder" equals "no generics available."
Now if the government is assisting in making it harder, that needs to stop immediately. For example, if the government is overriding First Sale doctrine here so that people can't buy the pills and turn around and sell them to a generic drug company for analysis. For that matter, requiring a prescription makes it harder for drugs to get, so dropping that requirement would also help.
All in all a higher price should function as a signal for competitors to swoop in and, motivated purely by greed, increase the supply of this crucial medication ... except in the presence of artificial barriers to entry created by government force such as patents (which in my opinion should be flagrantly disregarded just as surely as "whites only" laws).
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:36PM
Not sure why you bolded this part, or even bothered typing it, other than to inform everyone of your bias, because the summary is clear that no such artificial barriers exist:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:57PM
Maybe not in this case, but there are many patents that exist and hinder competition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @12:08AM
And those have exactly what to do with the topic at hand?
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:20PM
I was also confused in writing my part of the summary. The sampling issue doesn't seem like an insurmountable barrier.
My interpretation is that when the company was selling at $13.50, there was no incentive for other manufacturers to step in and make a generic version of a niche trademarked drug. Now with the sudden 5000% price increase, generic manufacturers are unprepared to step in, and patients are screwed in the meantime. I assume that those drug manufacturers need to acquire samples of the drug to compare their versions to and ensure FDA approval. The NYT story claims that controlled distribution is a way to thwart generics.
From NYT:
It doesn't look like anyone will die because of this, because doctors can badger the company to get charity access to the drug. But some patients will be hurt.
The situation is a failure of both free market principles and government regulation. Regulations (safety standards rather than patents) make it harder but not impossible to make a generic version of the drug, but the market can't quickly adapt to a situation where the monopoly making a low-demand, low-cost drug jacks up the price from reasonable levels to over 50 times more. With future technologies like "chemical printing", maybe it would be harder to pull off the price increase for such a cheap drug, but in today's world you need to pay the initial costs of starting production and meet regulatory concerns.
I want to know what it will cost for generic competitors to set up dedicated production lines for pyrimethamine. Even if they made every batch of tablets on demand and shipped them directly to the customers, while increasing the price to cover initial costs to start making the drug, I bet the price would come far under $750 per dose.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:32PM
I assume that those drug manufacturers need to acquire samples of the drug to compare their versions to and ensure FDA approval.
And yet the FDA has already approved it. Anybody should be able to sell an identical chemical. But it sounds like the requirements are much more onorous:
I think it is slightly more convoluted than that. You could make a similar generic, but in order to sell it you must conduct a study [thefreedictionary.com] that proves your drug is equivalent to the one you wish to replace. However in order to conduct the trail I think you need a control group that would take the original medication... which is priced so ridiculous it will not be worth it to run the trail if you plan to sell the new drug cheaply yourself. Plus even if you could pay for the supply, these schmucks would probably claim they cannot provide you with sufficient doses because of "shortage."
source [soylentnews.org]
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday September 25 2015, @11:07AM
Other Pharma companies are not going to jump in and invest all the money needed to produce and test the drug, and get FDA (and worldwide) approval to release in all the various markets, when Turing can simply drop the price back down to 13.50 again where it won't be profitable for a generic to make.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:06PM
More to the point, isn't the patent supposed to be all a person of average skill in the field needs to replicate the invention?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:00PM
> More to the point, isn't the patent supposed to be all a person of average skill in the field needs to replicate the invention?
No. The specific formulation in the branded version is rarely specified in the patent. Remember, patents are written to be as broad and generic as possible in order to lockdown as much as they possibly can. If you spell out all the specifics of what you actually bring to market, then you've limited yourself to those specifics and somebody else may be able to come up with something close enough to work, but different enough to get around the patent. An overly simplified example: packaging it in doses that are half the size but the patient could just take 2 of.
Frequently those details make a big difference in efficacy, so generics try to copy the exact formulation and even packaging as the branded version in order to be truly interchangeable.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 23 2015, @12:12AM
A patent, at least under the laws of around 1955, was supposed to contain sufficient information that one "skilled in the art" could reproduce the patented invention. That was the basis for the agreement of the state granting a limited (in time, etc.) monopoly to the inventor on the practice of the invention.
Perhaps the laws have changed. But I don't think so.
OTOH, even back as far as 1940 the requirement for revealing the invention was not realistically enforced. So while it's a theoretical requirement, it's not an actual requirement. IIRC people have gotten pattents on FTL spaceship drives, and I'm rather sure that nobody has ever revealed how to make such a thing.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @02:33AM
> A patent, at least under the laws of around 1955, was supposed to contain sufficient information that one "skilled in the art" could reproduce the patented invention.
I don't know if you are playing dumb or what. Drug patents are sufficient to reproduce the raw chemical. They just aren't sufficient to reproduce the specific product delivered to the market. Just like a theoretical patent on the wheel would not need to list the exact number of spokes, nor the the exact diameter of the wheels the WheelCo sells.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 23 2015, @08:41AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 23 2015, @07:09PM
That's a valid point, but it doesn't invalidate the point I was making. Patents often are not explicit. They are intentionally written to be a vague as can be gotten away with partially so that the claims can be as wide as possible. It's not clear that the intention is really to prevent others from being able to copy the work ... most of the time. As you point out, that is more properly addressed by a trade secret. But since they want to be as vague as possible anyway, the holders certainly don't hesitate to take the additional advantage of making replication unfeasible. This is not supposed to be allowed, but that requirement is rarely enforced, and then only in egregious cases.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:06PM
> How is distribution being controlled to prevent people from analyzing and duplicating the pill?
No free samples. Each pill has to be officially destined for a specific named patient. So you have to lie to get them which is fraud, and you need way more than just one in order to duplicate it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:15PM
Each pill has to be officially destined for a specific named patient.
I'm curious if that is law or if that is just the policy of the company producing them.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 23 2015, @02:19AM
Its just policy, and probably not enforceable when Some big Pharmacy sends in a bulk order. You can hardly hold up shipment until you get names of every patient, because as a manufacturer you have no right to that information. I think its pretty much a bluff.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 23 2015, @02:24AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday September 23 2015, @04:00AM
just know that the possession or exchange (regardless of whether any money changed hands) of any prescription-only drug without a prescription is a crime, as is possession of any prescription drug outside of its prescription bottle. its usually only a misdemeaner instead of felony if its not a controlled substance, but its still a crime. our drug laws are fucking ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:45PM
just know that the possession or exchange (regardless of whether any money changed hands) of any prescription-only drug without a prescription is a crime, as is possession of any prescription drug outside of its prescription bottle. its usually only a misdemeaner instead of felony if its not a controlled substance, but its still a crime. our drug laws are fucking ridiculous.
This is a law that needs to be broken for the purpose of duplicating this medicine, so therefore this is a law that needs to go by the wayside, and enforcing it is just as immoral as enforcing "whites only" laws.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday September 23 2015, @06:14PM
just this one? no, all drug prohibition laws need to be broken and ignored. any and all drug prohibitionary laws hinge upon removing self-sovereignty from citizens. so long as such laws exist at all, everyone in the countries were they exist are literal slaves.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 23 2015, @07:36PM
This is a law that needs to be broken for the purpose of duplicating this medicine
just this one?
No, I didn't say just this one. I simply highlighted this one as a great example.
no, all drug prohibition laws need to be broken and ignored. any and all drug prohibitionary laws hinge upon removing self-sovereignty from citizens. so long as such laws exist at all, everyone in the countries were they exist are literal slaves.
I agree with you completely.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @02:38AM
> Its just policy, and probably not enforceable when Some big Pharmacy sends in a bulk order. You can hardly hold up shipment until you get names of every patient,
You can require that when the order is placed that all the paperwork is filled out for it to be accepted. Sure the pharmacy can cheat, but you can threaten to stop selling it to them if you catch them cheating. Once a tracking system is in place for one drug, that can be used for all drugs. There is sooo much money on the table here that all the big companies in the supply chain can afford to jump through these hoops.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:38PM
I'm sure that in two years we'll see generics. Till then, everyone can just suck it right?
Price gouging like this Shkreli prick is doing should be a crime, the type where you get infected with something nasty, and denied treatment of course. What a raging asshole.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:46PM
I'm sure that in two years we'll see generics. Till then, everyone can just suck it right?
I'm sure we could see them a lot faster than that if this were a free market.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 23 2015, @08:10AM
Bait and switch.
And the generics companies know that. So the fuckers get away with it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:53PM
When you launch a drug, even a generic one, you do have to go through an approval process to demonstrate medical equivalence (this isn't complete bullshit - even if your active chemical is the same, your delivery mechanism and formulation might make it more or less effective (you don't want someone selling aspirin that does technically contain aspirin but it doesn't release it until after you've shit it out)). To do this, you need to run a medical trial.
I refuse to associate these scumbags with the good Alan, so I'll call them "Turdlike Pharmaceuticals".
Turdlike is refusing to sell their drug to anyone in sufficient quantities to run a medical trial, and refusing to sell to anyone who might use it for trials. So now you can't get approval the way a normal generic can, by proving you work just as well as another formulation of the same drug. You basically have to test it like it was a brand-new drug, which is unprofitable because even if you succeed, Turdlike will just drop their prices back down to normal so you don't reap much in the way of profit, definitely not enough to recoup your losses on approval.
Despite your preferences, this problem could be solved both by more and less regulation. Getting rid of the medical-equivalence testing could do it, but it might be better to just forbid companies from restricting who and how much they sell to. The former idea has some obvious issues (see the earlier example of non-functional aspirin), while the latter doesn't restrict anything that would have happened in an ideal free market anyways (it only prevents actions that happen only because of other market distortions).
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:11AM
you don't want someone selling aspirin that does technically contain aspirin but it doesn't release it until after you've shit it out
Ah, good point!
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @11:02PM
What you are describing is A MARKET.
If all the Capitalists had died yesterday, markets would still exist.
A lot of folks needlessly conflate these paradigms.
Since there is no longer an "intellectual property" restriction on this (no artificial scarcity), a (Socialist) worker cooperative could produce this and sell it to consumer cooperatives.
Both operations could take any excess profits to their credit union (another cooperative).
In the model I have described, there are no Capitalists at all.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @11:19PM
Wrong.
Your worker's cooperative requires stores of value to be able to actually obtain the means of production, whether or not this is in the form of cash. Or, if they genuinely have nothing whatsoever, they need to accumulate capital by the process of building tools and digging up ore and smelting and all the rest of what they need to be able to function.
You can do a five finger exercise on consumer cooperatives and credit unions. It doesn't matter whether you're measuring wealth in pesos or peanuts, someone somewhere along the line is looking at what they have in hand/in the bank/in a warehouse and making a call as to how to invest/employ/barter that to best advantage. That's capitalism.
I don't know where you got the nutty idea that cooperatives are somehow anticapitalist, or uncapitalist, or otherthancapitalist, but provided you have private ownership and disposition of stores of value, and recovery of value from the use of your stored value, you have capitalism.
If on the other hand you have a central government telling the band of workers what capital to use, and how to use it, then you don't have capitalism. But that's not what you're describing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @12:11AM
The workers own the means of production.
That's Socialism.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:28AM
Depends on what you mean.
If each worker owns, and has (as is the common meaning of ownership) a convertible, realisable interest in some materially distinguishable aspect of the means of production, such as to be able to negotiate concerning the use thereof, then you still have capitalism.
You could even make a case that a worker's collective is a capitalistic entity insofar they collectively own the means of production, and enjoy the fruits thereof.
If on the other hand the workers do not have discretion as to the application of capital, don't have a claim to the fruits of its application, or have no means of conversion, then you don't have capitalism - but it's deeply misleading to call it ownership.
On yet another hand, if all this is code for a collective group calling the shots in the names of the workers who don't really get to decide for themselves what to do .... well, we've heard that song before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @03:25AM
You spewed a huge number of words trying to convince people that white is black.
It only took me 9 words to state the classical definition.
You lose.
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @04:22AM
Bad news.
Your definition of socialism is on the level of Donald Trump's definition of America. Full of tasty, heart-warming goodness, but useless for real work and deeply misleading.
Good news.
You, too, can eventually come to understand the nuances. All you need to do is work at it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @04:38AM
It's not -my- definition.
It's the definition assigned by Karl Marx.
Y'know, the guy who invented the word.
You lose again.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @05:18PM
OK, so let's delve into this a little bit.
What is capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system characterised by a series of arrangements related to capital and the treatment of capital.
Capitalism is distinct from feudalism, and a wide range of systems (sometimes widely disparate) which are known as various forms of socialism, but there are also forms of feudalism and socialism which share many substantial features with capitalism.
The essential elements of capitalism centre on the idea that capital (qua store of value) is a meaningful asset in its own right, the existence and maintenance of which enjoys legal protection, such that the capitalist can retain the rewards of capital, trade for those rewards or for the capital itself. In a sense, capitalism tracks capital.
In classic, hard line feudalism, all ownership reverts to the crown (the exact limits of this definition vary - in many systems goods and chattel were privately controlled) and the last word on the disposition of capital rests with the crown. Others enjoy the benefits of the capital in question at the pleasure of the crown.
In socialism, to use the marxian definition which you put forward, there is an essential unresolved ambiguity: if the workers own the means of production, to what extent does it constitute ownership? For example, if a weaver leaves a weaving factory, does he get a shuttle? A loom? A part of the building? Or does he get to rent that back to the rest of the collective? If he does not, then the concept of his ownership of the means of production is not one which we would generally regard as very sound.
Conversely, if the weavers own the factory, equipment and stores as a collective group independent of any individual claims, what happens to people who leave? Are they simply cast out with no resources whatsoever? They can leave a situation where the collective is effectively a capitalist entity, with recognised property rights, but individual people enjoy access to property only at the pleasure of legally recognised collectives.
Alternatively, if the workers merely control the means of production, as opposed to having a proprietary claim, what scheme is used for the resolution of conflicting property claims? Does some sort of ultimate workers' council call the shots?
On some level, the first case is effectively capitalistic because individuals can establish and maintain proprietary claims, and trade and manage their store of value on a personal level regardless of the fact of having a team of workers collectively owning a factory. The last case is anti-capitalistic, because accumulation of capital is no more possible for an individual than it might be under a strict feudal system, where everything is held at the pleasure of a regal figure.
The real world is messy, and there are many shades of grey. Social democracies such as Sweden generally protect private property, but tax and redistribute quite aggressively to redress imbalances. The USA is inconsistent - it actually has quite a substantial redistributive system in place - but at least nominally has strong private property rights. In actual fact the degree of red tape around many uses of private property is so restrictive that many private actions are de facto at the pleasure of government figures, which calls into question the idea of the USA being a capitalist society.
Unfortunately, Marx's dictum is not a very useful guideline without a much more detailed examination of all the implications, some of which he left rather fuzzy. In fact, some of his claims were robustly contested at the time, and subsequently shown to be quite false as matters of empirical fact. The labour theory of value in particular stands out as one which simply cannot explain much of the modern world's economy, however simplistically attractive it may have seemed at the time.
I hope that this little whistle-stop tour of economic definitions will encourage you to study the field in greater depth. It's as full of hidden subtleties and surprising implications as any other, and has massive practical implications. Next time you might like to outline in greater detail precisely what you understood Marx to mean in the context of ownership of the means of production, and what the extent of that ownership might be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @10:36PM
The real world is messy
...especially when red herrings like yours are added.
I'll make it simple for anyone still reading this:
In Capitalism (and Feudalism and Slave-based economies) there is a separate ownership class that exploits the working class.
The Working Class might choose to get rid of the exploiters (as they started doing in France in 1789) and they are on their way to the the next and ultimate economic system: Socialism (where you do useful labor or you starve--there are no idle rich).
Marx's [...] claims were [...] quite false
What's false is your assertions.
Murderous Capitalists have repeatedly used their guns to destroy successful Socialism (Paris, 1871; Barcelona, 1937; Indonesia, 1965; etc.).
Across the north of Italy, as an example, Socialist production paradigms are very successful (without having to kill anyone--just displacing the obsolete (vulture) Capitalist model).
Those local|regional clusters need to continue to proliferate (Socialism is a bottom-up paradigm) and consolidate their political power.
The problem, as previously mentioned, is to survive to a national level without being literally murdered by Capitalists--typically a USA-funded/armed/trained/supported activity (Chile, 1973).
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24 2015, @12:12AM
Alas, would that it were that simple. You're not actually giving us a very meaningful definition.
First you tell us that the workers own the means of production (a statement which needs some detail, as we've seen before) but now you tell us that there's an ownership class which exploits the working class. This raises many questions, such as the limits of ownership, and the disposition of returns. You haven't specified these at all.
Why does it matter? Here are a couple of cases:
Let's stipulate that ownership is individual, transferable, and quantifiable. Bob the Herring Cannery Worker (since you don't care for my red herrings) decides one fine day that he would do better by making delicious cider for all the thirsty herring canners, but he needs some equipment to get off the ground. He sells his interest in the herring cannery to someone else, and starts to make cider. He does very well at this (he found his native talent!) and pretty soon he's the sole owner of a wildly successful cidery. Good for Bob!
... this is a pretty capitalist-looking outcome, and completely in line with what you described as the workers owning the means of production...
In the next case, we recast the concept of ownership in terms of contingency. Bob has a nominal interest in the herring cannery, strictly as and when he works for the herring cannery. The moment he decides to do something else, he is gifted some of the nominal ownership in his new pursuit, assuming that there is anybody allowing him to join his new pursuit, but simply forfeits all interest in the herring cannery. If he left the herring cannery and nobody else has room for him, he's suddenly indigent. And, as per your statement, on the highway to starvation. What precisely is involved in the concept of ownership here? A share in the profits, if we're measuring thing in terms of profit? Does he get to take home a wheelbarrow of canned herring to peddle on the streets? Does he get a vote on the activities of the cannery? If the cannery dissolves, does he get some kind of interest in the assets? Where is the boundary?
... in this scenario, Bob is more like a serf with a collective, rather than a single master. It's not really ownership as we recognise it, but is it what you meant?
Moreover, there's an open question: a herring cannery means little without herring to can. Do herring boats automatically cede their catch to the cannery? Is there something traded? Who decides on the trades? Who is the ultimate arbiter of the ownership questions vis-a-vis stocks of herring? Or do the herring boats have some sort of proprietary interest in the herring, and the cannery merely performs the service of canning? And what about the cans themselves? What about the labels? What about the machinery? Your proposal does not detail any structure which actually answers these questions at all.
I notice that you rest your position on a hegelian understanding of history, since you refer to "the next and ultimate economic system: Socialism" but you don't offer any answer to the empirical weaknesses of that model as observed since Marx's time. I'm assuming (absent further particulars) that you're a fairly orthodox marxist but even his followers have had to interpret and adapt his works in the last century.
You don't say why Marx's views on the labour theory of value were true. You don't even address the question at all. So let's try this again: if they were true, how do you square them with things like the differential value of different workers, differential analysis of value from the perspective of different utility functions, and the contextual nature of value in different environments? These are merely a few of the major challenges brought over the years; any decent search of the history of the topic should give you half a dozen more. And yet, you dismiss them with a handwave, not specifics.
You then segue to a laundry list of various conflicts of varying degrees of cogency, as an anecdotal appeal to support a conspiracy theory that the only reason it's not working is because the USA won't let it work - but you won't tell us what this system looks like in terms of the rules by which it runs.
So, fair enough, let's hear it: what, in your view, does ownership really mean in this context? What are the implications for individual choice and initiative? What defines the minimum size of a group of workers which may be said to own something? Who certifies that? How are disputes with respect to conflicting claims of ownership resolved? How are transfers of means of production across various layers of industry effected? Are loans permissible? May they be secured? May interest be charged, or any other consideration in respect of use of accumulations of value? If not, what are the motivations behind the creation of a surplus in the interests of maintenance, technological updates and future developments? Who becomes the guardian of those interests?
Ultimately, if ownership actually can be individual, and diligence and intelligence rewarded with commensurate returns, and interest-bearing returns are possible (whether in cash or kind is largely immaterial) what is to prevent someone from becoming a capitalist in a socialist world? The moment that he stops earning from the sweat of his brow, and starts based on his intelligence and historic productivity, he gets lynched? Or stripped of all his possessions because successful trading or saving are de facto crimes?
Please let us know what the answers are, so that we can evaluate what you're really proposing, because so far you're being very nonspecific.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:12AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:18AM
Agreed. The only reason it can't be duplicated is because it JUST HAPPENED, and nobody has geared up to do it yet. The Formula and the molecular structure is NOT Secret, because its in the Patent. That's what patent's do.
Furthermore, now that everyone has vented their RAGE, NBC Is Reporting [nbcnews.com] (warning - autoplay video on the page) that the CEO has decided maybe this wasn't such a good idea, and will be rolling back the price. How far the roll-back is anyone's guess.
He told NBC News that the decision to lower the price was a reaction to outrage over the increase in the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
"Yes it is absolutely a reaction — there were mistakes made with respect to helping people understand why we took this action, I think that it makes sense to lower the price in response to the anger that was felt by people," Shkreli said.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:06PM
Socialised medicine is great!
Until you've lived under it, and the cure you need isn't approved, but dangerous and ineffective measures are because they're cheaper.
Been there. Done that. Socialised medicine is a huge driver of medical tourism.
If you actually read the article (and linked background information) you will see that the whole reason this guy's scam work is not the Hideous and Evil Capitalist Conspiracy to Keep The Honest Working Folk Down, but precisely because of the rules and regulations set up by the sublime, benevolent and wise government.
I don't (full disclosure) have a problem with the principle of socialised medicine, but only as long as the private market is allowed to keep it honest by competing on an even footing.
What a lot of socialised medicine fans don't seem to want to acknowledge is that if it isn't socialised all the way down, then someone at some point down the chain is a government supplier for medications, bandages, disinfectants and so on, and that while monopsonies have massive price-setting power, if they don't want to price their suppliers out of the market, they actually have to allow for a substantial premium to keep their suppliers willing. Otherwise you have problems like so many poorer countries do, where they can't get what they want at any price, because the government's budget is only so big.
Or you get the lunacy of the NHS, where services really improved, but only because the budget expanded like a croaking bullfrog.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:18PM
socialized medicine may not be perfect.
but I'll take it ANY DAY over what the US now has.
if socialied medicine gets a 5/10 in a 10-being-perfect scale, what the US now has would rate a -1000
yes, it sucks that bad. if you are well off and have great insurance, you MAY be ok. if you are on your own, well, please die so that we can take your room/apartment/house. its THAT cold and no one (in power) has been hurt by it since, well, those in power are INSULATED from this reality.
if they had to live like many of us do, it would have been changed in no time flat. but since congress gets its own premium pkg and the rest of us don't, they have zero idea what its like to be a 'normy' in today's america.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:52PM
Socialised medicine is great!
Until you've lived under it, and the cure you need isn't approved, but dangerous and ineffective measures are because they're cheaper.
So, going to Mexico for some of that unapproved "Goat Gland Science", are we? Good luck!
(Score: 3, Touché) by tibman on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:39PM
You talk as if you think the US is the only country that does medical research.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:57PM
Until you've lived under it, and the cure you need isn't approved, but dangerous and ineffective measures are because they're cheaper.
So, exactly like how it works here in the States, then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:12PM
In the states you can:
a) go to an alternative provider
b) save up the money for what you need
c) take what's on offer
d) do without
e) engage in medical tourism to elsewhere where you can get what you need
In socialised medicine, A and B are off the table. If the government is the gatekeeper, there are reduced avenues. Medical tourism to the US of A actually happens too, because you can find doctors who will do all sorts of things no matter what your government at home thinks.
Bear in mind that a cheap, ineffective option is often worse in the long term because you still haven't solved the original problem, which levies its own (emotional, physical and ultimately financial) toll.
Granted, socialised medicine as a fall back option when you still have a private medical industry still leaves you A and B, provided that the government isn't unduly restricting the formulary. This is why private medicine helps keep socialised medicine honest.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @12:52AM
Umm, that only stands if all of the options you provided are equal, and provide an outcome as positive as the fewer outcomes socialised healthcare does. Unfortunately for you none of that is true unless you are unusually wealthy.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nollij on Wednesday September 23 2015, @04:32AM
Well, using the UK NHS, which seems to be everyone's reference point on "socialized medicine", I would point out that there ARE alternative, private insurers and providers, operating entirely outside of the NHS. They just aren't very popular, because most people are satisfied with the NHS. So A and B are back on the table.
Medical tourism happens all the time, for various reasons. Some people do go from the UK to the US for treatment. Some go from US to India for very expensive procedures. Some go from US to Brazil for procedures banned in the US. And some people go from the US to Mexico, to reap the benefits of their single-payer system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @12:42PM
I am from USA, I was diagnosed of ALS disease (Lou Gehrig’s disease) in 2010 and I have tried all I could to get cured but all to no avail, my life was gradually coming to an end, until i saw a post in a health forum about a herbal doctor from Africa who prepares herbal cure to cure HIV and all kind of diseases including HIV, ALS, MND, Epilepsy, Leukemia, Asthma, Cancer, Gonorrhea, genital warts etc, at first i doubted if it was real but i decided to give it a try, when i contacted this herbal doctor via his email, he prepared an ALS herbal portion and sent it to me via courier service, when i received this herbal portion, he gave me step by step instructions on how to apply it, when i applied it as instructed, i was cured of this deadly disease within 7 days, I could not walk or talk understandably before but after i took the herbal cureas he instructed i regained strength in my bones and i could talk properly unlike before, I am now free from the deadly disease, all thanks to Dr ODI. Contact this great herbal doctor via his email oyeyetemple@gmail.com OR oyeyetemple@outlook.com or call and whatsapp at +2348115531558
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:14PM
and you get the cure they can afford, not what you want...
it would be the same with insurance companies: they would not include everything under the sun in a particular insurance, you would have different pricing...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:32PM
B-b-b-b-b-but, muh free market! The invisible hand will drive this guy out of business for pushing prices too high! And the people who need the medicine but can't afford it obviously don't deserve to live, otherwise they would've been born rich or had the sense to not get infected with whatever makes them need the medicine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:39PM
Actually short term invisible hand sucks balls. But now that this dude has entered the market at 750 a pill. Others may go 'hmm' and make the pill for 20 a pop...
(Score: 1) by number11 on Wednesday September 23 2015, @03:44AM
Ah, ok. So "short term" only lasts a couple of years. That's ok, everybody can afford a $269K/year increase in their medical bills. No problem.
Though I do hear that Scumbag Shkreli has backed off on the price increase. I'm sure that threats on his life (some from members of Congress) had nothing to do with it, probably he's just discovered morals.
Interesting question, really. Mostly we think that you can't get lower than being a hedge fund manager. But this guy has moved to new depths as a pharma CEO. He makes the banksters look good.
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:18PM
B-b-b-b-b-but, muh free market! The invisible hand will drive this guy out of business for pushing prices too high!
Not if the law makes it impossible for people to copy and sell the pill.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:35PM
It isn't but for some reason I can't fathom, people are more apt to trust profit motivated insurance companies to be paragons of ethics and compassion. Yeah, government bureaucracies do suck, but not anywhere near the level of the private health industry (pharma, insurance, hospitals, etc. etc.).
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:39PM
I guess you have to be a resident of a state without physician assisted suicide. Unless each an every health care provider will cover any drug it takes for you to live, then there is a death panel. Any company that has provisions in place where they can weasel out of giving you treatment has people deciding who gets to live and day.
In the state of Oregon there was a situation where a woman's chances of survival put her in a bracket pre-decided by the state public healthcare (OHP) where treatment would be cut off.
The woman was denied her cancer treatment, but OHP said they would cover end of life easing including physician suicide.
http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html [kval.com]
Sound like a death panels to me.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @12:13AM
And her death-panel insurance policy would've even denied her that, although it would've happened a lot sooner because they'd have denied all of her treatments from the very start.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:01AM
Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior does not make this acceptable. I am not saying private insurance is better, I am not saying public insurance is worse. My comment is that you can't claim there are no death panels. All insurance has them, all new insurance will have them. I am just tired of hearing that they will "go away" with public insurance, it is misleading and wrong.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @04:06AM
Everything is a "death panel". If your job fires you and you're sick, or worse they fire you because you're terminally ill, you can no longer pay your medical bills, thus your former employer has become your "death panel". The term is nothing but a meaningless scare-word which has literally no purpose or definition beyond spreading FUD.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 23 2015, @08:05AM
Erm, no we still keep hearing about how wonderful socialized medicine is. And occasionally we get a middle-of-the-night ambulance ride to hospital A&E, plugged into monitors for hours, and get a chest x-ray too, and pay all of *5 fucking euros* for all of that. Because we're in Europe.
I'd be interested to know what an average American would have had to pay for the above service. While I was waiting for the bill, I was thinking "If I have to pay much over 200e, I'll wonder where my tax money is going, but I bet it's closer to 4 figures in the US, so I'll not complain". In the end I did almost complain - I asked "how can it be that cheap - I've used 100e in labour!!??!"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:41PM
I've thrown in a submission on the same story, but jan and submitters here put together a better summary.
There are plenty news about this Martin Shkreli character right now - just another of these hedgefund cocksuckers. The real problem is that it's all legal, and currently there is no remedy for such abuses. Incentives and regulation need to be cooked up so that a reliable supply of proven, out-of-patent drugs is maintained securely.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:57PM
I want to see the powerpoint. "Yes, we can raise the price by 5000%, and we will lose some of our market, but those are the ones without insurance and unlikely to survive long enough for us to maximize their disease's potential for profit to our company. Those who remain will more than make up for lost revenue, at the new price point. And just like Ford with the Pinto, it will be cheaper to pay off the survivors of the victims of the new price than it would be to lower it."
Bottom line? World, may I introduce Blackwater Pharma!
(Score: 3, Funny) by mendax on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:45PM
I thought my evil black cat was the feline gift to the world. Certainly the world revolves around her. The toxoplasmosis she has most likely given me is only an added bonus.
But on a serious note, there is an entire ring of Hell waiting for Martin Shkreli. Anyone who can morally justify such outrageous pricing certainly deserves to be Satan's prison bitch.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:45PM
Shkreli sure makes me wish I wasn't an atheist, but chances are, he'll have a great life being super wealthy and then when he dies, nothing. Justice can only be had in this life, sadly.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:55PM
I am not your cat.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday September 23 2015, @03:17AM
That's good. She doesn't like having competition.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by SanityCheck on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:48PM
I just can't feel pity for him, even thou the media and populous around the world will do him in harder than if he shot Shamu the Whale with a cross bow. What a scumbag, he might even get the cover of Times for this, as an infamous asshat that finally leads US to socialize medicine.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:15PM
A 62 year old drug that can be produced for a dollar and no one is selling it for less than $750. I am confident we will find some extremely messed up government meddling at the root of this problem, or those numbers are wrong.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:24PM
Yep, as linked by gman003 here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=9642&cid=240166#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/09/21/martin-shkreli-has-one-idea-and-its-a-bad-one [sciencemag.org]
(Score: 2) by eof on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:49PM
Despite the second AC's response, I don't believe this company has made use of FDA granted market exclusivity. For instance, the company has not done any testing to bring the drug into the current regulatory regime. The issue seems to be market share and the cost of developing a new drug that will satisfy the FDA requirements.
(Score: 2, Informative) by SanityCheck on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:57PM
I think it is slightly more convoluted than that. You could make a similar generic, but in order to sell it you must conduct a study [thefreedictionary.com] that proves your drug is equivalent to the one you wish to replace. However in order to conduct the trail I think you need a control group that would take the original medication... which is priced so ridiculous it will not be worth it to run the trail if you plan to sell the new drug cheaply yourself. Plus even if you could pay for the supply, these schmucks would probably claim they cannot provide you with sufficient doses because of "shortage."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:23PM
I think it is slightly more convoluted than that. You could make a similar generic, but in order to sell it you must conduct a study [thefreedictionary.com] that proves your drug is equivalent to the one you wish to replace. However in order to conduct the trail I think you need a control group that would take the original medication... which is priced so ridiculous it will not be worth it to run the trail if you plan to sell the new drug cheaply yourself. Plus even if you could pay for the supply, these schmucks would probably claim they cannot provide you with sufficient doses because of "shortage."
There it is! There's the real barriers to entry here. It's not that this guy is wrong to charge whatever price he wants for his chemicals. It's the people who won't let you sell an identical chemical in competition with him.
This is not a free market problem, because this is not a free market.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Wednesday September 23 2015, @03:57AM
There is no such thing as a free market, except as an abstract concept in economics textbooks. Regulations aren't the problem, uncontrolled profit-seeking behavior is the problem. Health care should not be a "market" at all. All of the nations with socialized medicine have all the same medications we have available, at drastically lower costs. For-profit medicine is evil, and does not work for anyone except those with plenty of cash. It's as simple as that. If we deregulated the market the new companies that copied the medication would simply charge whatever the market will bear. If one company is charging $500 per pill for a treatment for a terminal disease, the next company will simply charge $495 per pill, because they can. From a capitalistic perspective they'd be stupid not to wring as much profit out of the product as they can. The fabled free market does not magically fix things like this.
Sometimes I think conservative capitalism-worshippers would even go back to for-profit fire departments and police departments if they could. To fail to understand why these things cannot be privatized without terrible results is a form of insanity.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @06:21PM
Duh, of course they would. All the conservatives who worship at the Church of Capitalism have more than enough capital and wealth to fully take advantage of the system, and they don't give a fuck about anybody who doesn't; as far as they're concerned, you're not an actual human being until you're a member of the 7 digit club.
(Score: 2) by eof on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:15PM
Would the new drug trial really need a control group on the old drug? I doubt it, but I don't know. If it can be proven effective and safe, why bring the old drug into it? Direct comparisons to the old drug might be useful if doctors wanted to compare the relative effectiveness. In this case, price might be the largest consideration. Of course, the existence of the old drug helps in the development of a new one since the insights can be borrowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:35PM
It seems that in trying to encourage testing of grandfathered drugs the FDA offered marketing rights for three years. So now a new industry has sprung up to fund a clinical trial and then jack up the price in a bet to make the money back in that three years. In this case, it sounds like Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the rights from a company that recently did the trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:37PM
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/04/27/market_exclusivity_is_sometimes_too_much [sciencemag.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:18PM
Dr. Derek Lowe, practicing medical research chemist, has some thoughts about this guy [sciencemag.org] and what to do about him and his ilk [sciencemag.org]. That first link is a good factual account of the current issue, the second is a good in-industry examination of what needs to be done to stop it from happening again.
You know you're doing something wrong when the notoriously-evil biochem industry is rallying with torches, pitchforks and a noose...
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:26PM
that's too good for him.
feed such people to Woo's pigs. at least the pigs get some use out of such worthless excuses for humanity.
(and then, we get to enjoy the pigs. wins all around!)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Informative) by mmcmonster on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:09PM
That's nothing.
Digoxin is a commonly used cardiac medication. It's on the World Health Organization list of essential medications and has been used as a medication since the late 1700s. It used to cost $5 for a month's supply as a generic medication. It's now as high as $38 for a month's supply.
Colchicine is another one. Very commonly used to treat Gout. Used to cost $5 a month, now as much as $135 a month.
There are some great cardiac medications that went generic a few years ago but the prices a staying stubbornly high for unclear reasons. (ie: Lipitor/atorvastatin, pacerone/amiodarone, norvasc/amlodipine, toprol xl/metoprolol succinate)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:31PM
I remember reading about collusion.
India and Brasil have some major players in generic drugs. Big Pharma pay them off to limit or avoid producing generic versions of recently out-of-patent drugs, in order to support the continued sale of branded (and expensive) drugs - generic makers make money for doing nothing, and the Big Pharma makes out because profit from branded drugs outweigh bribe to the generic makers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 23 2015, @02:21AM
One of the things that strikes me about this whole conversation, is pricing. Others mention pills that cost $20 each, the article is all about a pill that costs ~$759 each. You mention a drug that costs ~$5 for a month's supply.
And, all the while, there are still people in the world who can't afford $5 per year for drugs. The spectrum of wealth and poverty in this world is just so damned wide! We talk about the one percenters, in various contexts. Holy crap - the people who can afford a regimen of pills that cost $750 each? Those are the top one percent of the top one percent.
My own health care plan sucks balls. I don't know how good your might be - but however good or bad it is, there are people in the world who can only dream of having it.
And, all the while, that richest .001% of the world population continue to get richer by being opporunistic parasites, like the sumbitch in TFS. He doesn't care how many thousands, or tens of thousands of people die, so long as he maximizes profits.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday September 23 2015, @03:19AM
Amlodipine is one I know of. Felodipine became generic a few years ago, and for a while the price was fair. Then something happened, and now felodipine costs $1 per pill in the US. I was baffled, because I knew it was generic. Maybe this is what happened. I went through a list of around 20 of the -dipine drugs, trying to find a cheaper one. They're all expensive, and amlodipine is merely the cheapest of the lot at about $0.40 per pill, if you order it from a Canadian pharmacy.
We may just drop those drugs altogether. There are other ways to manage high blood pressure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:14PM
Even for very high margin products like children's toys the distributor's markup is only 100%, suggesting that the pills should cost $2.00 apiece.
The marketing expenses could be greatly reduced by selling the pills at a reasonable profit to the distributor and the pharmacy. That suggests $4.00 apiece.
Food at your grocery store has a far, far smaller margin. The net profit on gasoline for American filling stations is typically $0.02/gallon. That's why they all operate convenience stores, some operate full-service restaurants. The gas pumps are provided only to entice drivers to pop in for a pack of smokes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:25PM
And why not jack prices sky-high? The patient will never see the bill; all they'll see is their insurance premium go up and benefits go down. And why would insurers care? We're now mandated to buy their products. This seems to me like a legal way to avoid the 10% (was it 10%?) overhead cap Nixon/Romney/Obamacare imposes. All that remains to be seen is whether companies who do this keep all that gravy or if there's some backroom deals and money laundering to send some of that gravy over to the higher-ups at insurance companies.
Well played! A fool and his money are soon parted. We can thank the Ds for being the patsy to implement Obamacare and the Rs for essentially diluting and polarizing any debate that might have been had with FUD and feet dragging. The American public that insists on voting R and D only are the fools.
Where are the SJWs when we need them? Here, let Tsubasa help! I've got an itch to do some social justice keyboard warrioring today! Malaria. Where is malaria a problem? Africa. Black people. HIV. Which demographics suffer disproportionately from HIV? Black people and homosexuals. Am… er… SJWs, attack!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by JavaDevGuy on Wednesday September 23 2015, @12:09AM
Then why in the social UK National Health service does this drug only cost $0.66 per pill?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:34AM
Because they didn't write regulations which could be exploited like IE6.
Honestly, this company is doing us all a big solid by pointing out how broken the system is. Now maybe we can get some bright politicians to fix the situation and maybe get some of our so-called intellectual property rights back.
Nah, never happen. But I won't blame them for taking advantage of government idiocy. I blame the government. And vote out incumbents.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 23 2015, @06:43AM
regulations which could be exploited like IE6.
I am in love with an AC. Anyone who could come up with this phrase deserves undying adoration. Well played, AC, well played!
(Score: 4, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday September 22 2015, @11:07PM
Please use the chemical name (pyrimethamine)
instead of the trade name.
Reasons:
- trade names are not unique, chemical names are
- trade names change in time and between nations
- trade names are the tools of the industry you are criticizing here
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:26AM
I did use it, and I linked to the chemical's article on Wikipedia.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Wednesday September 23 2015, @03:37AM
My apologies, I pulled the trigger in my comment a bit early. However it has been a trend in pharmaceutical articles here that the chemical name tends to get burried. May I suggest that when ever a trade name is used (in this case I understand that it's somewhat specific) that it is of the form:
chemical name (trade name)
I know I'm being pedantic but its important for clarity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @02:27AM
The price of pyrimethamine didn't go up. The price of Daraprim did.