Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

Generic Drugmakers Conspired to Inflate Prices Up to 1,000%, State Prosecutors Say

posted by Fnord666 on Monday May 13 2019, @07:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the naughty-executives dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956_

Leading drug companies including Teva, Pfizer, Novartis and Mylan conspired to inflate the prices of generic drugs by as much as 1,000 percent, according to a far-reaching lawsuit filed on Friday by 44 states.

The industrywide scheme affected the prices of more than 100 generic drugs, according to the complaint, including lamivudine-zidovudine, which treats H.I.V.; budesonide, an asthma medication; fenofibrate, which treats high cholesterol; amphetamine-dextroamphetamine for A.D.H.D.; oral antibiotics; blood thinners; cancer drugs; contraceptives; and antidepressants.

"We all know that prescription drugs can be expensive," Gurbir S. Grewal, the New Jersey attorney general, said in a statement. "Now we know that high drug prices have been driven in part by an illegal conspiracy among generic drug companies to inflate their prices."

In court documents, the state prosecutors lay out a brazen price-fixing scheme involving more than a dozen generic drug companies and just as many executives responsible for sales, marketing and pricing. The complaint alleges that the conspirators knew their efforts to thwart competition were illegal and that they therefore avoided written records by coordinating instead at industry meals, parties, golf outings and other networking events.

Source: https://theinformationsuperhighway.org/generic-drugmakers-conspired-to-inflate-prices-up-to-1000-state-prosecutors-say/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Generic Drugmakers Conspired to Inflate Prices Up to 1,000%, State Prosecutors Say | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 107 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:42AM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:42AM (#843703) Homepage
    You demonstrated you didn't understand how a simple logical deduction works. You have shown no signs of working out what your error is. Progress can not be made unless you start understanding things, your posts are nothing but a flapping sound until then.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:42AM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:42AM (#843762) Journal

    You demonstrated you didn't understand how a simple logical deduction works.

    Sorry, that wasn't simple logical deduction nor appropriate to the thread.

    You have shown no signs of working out what your error is.

    Nor has anyone, including you, bothered to work out this alleged error either.

    Progress can not be made unless you start understanding things, your posts are nothing but a flapping sound until then.

    Funny, how my problems involve you stepping up your game. It's almost like it's not me that is the problem here.

    What I find particularly bizarre about the whole episode is the high level of condescension you bring to a "simple logical deduction". First, you repeatedly expound on the logic side as if that were important ("mathematical fact", "Have you ever heard of /reductio ad absurdum/?"). It's like the drunk looking for car keys at night. It's too much work to look in the dark where they dropped the keys, and the lighting is better over here so...

    The big problem as I noted before is that the argument, logical as it may be, is irrelevant to the discussion. That's what a straw man argument is, after all. Your condescension doesn't change that your argument isn't adding anything to this discussion.