SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The FDA has approved a new drug for Alzheimer's disease, while not a cure it is supposed to slow the decline. Even though data is not entirely positive or straight forward in its interpretation or that it will actually even work as thought.
But if you have it then you are probably desperate enough to try almost anything that claims to work, until you get to the price tag of $56,000 per year. That will probably make it out of reach for most people, it's doubtful if any insurance will cover something like this. Perhaps you can just forget to pay the bill, they might understand due to your condition.
Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos [...][said] he thought the drug's price was "fair" but also vowed that the company would not hike its price for four years.
Previously:
In Surprise Turnaround, Biogen to Submit Previously Failed Alzheimer Drug for Approval
Disputed Alzheimer's Study Links Decrease in Amyloid Levels to Reduction in Cognitive Decline
Positive Result in Mice as Alzheimer's Drug Trials Fail and Regulatory Barriers Are Rolled Back
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09 2021, @07:26PM (10 children)
Charging what the market will bear without meaningful competition leads to robber barons.
History decided that this was a bad idea and added regulation to price at cost plus a reasonable profit.
Without meaningful competition, drug pricing according to benefit is just a nice way of saying what the market will bear.
Only it is worse with drugs. Instead of a railroad taking your money or not hauling your stuff, it's your money or your life.
Even in the afterglow of the miracle of Covid vaccines, this story reminds us we still need a better funding strategy for drugs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 09 2021, @09:06PM (9 children)
What does "pricing" even mean? Guy had a heart attack, and they put stents in his heart. He has to take blood thinners, and a specific brand was prescribed. Market price was well over $500 for a one month supply - roughly $10/pill. Insurance brought that down to about $200. Hospital offered a coupon from the manufacturer which meant that the medicine was free to the recipient.
If that stuff costs $500 for sixty pills, then WTF are they distributing coupons to reduce the price by 40% or more?
It's hard for me to believe that it costs the manufacturer even $1 to produce them. The whole pricing scheme is flawed and corrupt.
And, we wonder where the Shkirelli creatures come from. People like that make me wonder why I oppose abortion.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Wednesday June 09 2021, @09:25PM (5 children)
Big Pharma says it's to pay for the R&D but (haven't checked this) I've read that they spend more on marketing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 09 2021, @09:59PM (4 children)
A couple quick searches gave me these:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-spends-30b-on-marketing-most-of-it-goes-to-doctors/ [arstechnica.com]
https://www.prescouter.com/2019/06/pharmaceutical-rd-global-spending-trends-in-2019/ [prescouter.com]
So, 20 billion for advertising, vs 165 billion for R&D. No indication of lobbying and campaign donation costs.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09 2021, @10:12PM
Oh Noes! Moar Runaway Education? Lord save us!
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Thursday June 10 2021, @12:11AM
Thank you.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 10 2021, @11:33AM
Interesting post
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @09:41PM
A couple of problems here. You are comparing only the amount of money spent only on wooing doctors in the US while leaving out all other marketing activities worldwide to total worldwide R&D both public and private.
But where the money has really gone for huge pharmacology corporations is to stock buybacks. There are a number of articles on that and a recent clip of CEOs getting grilled over where their money goes by a congresswoman a few days ago.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday June 10 2021, @07:07AM (2 children)
Perhaps it cost the manufacturer $1 to produce them. How much did it cost to do the research and set up all the infrastructure to start producing them? And unless all of the initial investors were funding the endeavor solely out of benevolence, they're going to want a return on their investment, or they wouldn't have invested in the life saving treatment one would be receiving; they may have invested in improved construction technology instead. Good for home owners, bad for you dying.
We are far from post scarcity, so we need some way to distribute resources efficiently. We could go the socialist planned economy route, but history has shown that for all its faults, a free market works way more efficiently. And so here we are.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 10 2021, @03:09PM (1 child)
Return on investment is understandable. R&D expense, ditto. So, why all the silly games? Why do they need that whole discount and coupon nonsense? Why spend 30 billion on pushing the drugs? People are going to come for life saving drugs when the life saving drugs are needed, no adverts needed.
It's nothing more than a carnival side show. I put three, six, twelve, or sixty cups upside down on the table, put a prize under one. If you can keep up with the sleight of hand, you can claim the prize. Careful now, pay close attention to the rules that I make up as we go!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10 2021, @04:13PM
The discount and coupon sideshow is all about regulation. In specific, Medicare pricing. There's all sorts of rules about what they have to do for medicare drugs (a very big chunk of the market they definitely want to be eligible for) that are very poorly designed. In the end, it pretty much requires them to play these sorts of games if they want to actually be profitable.