KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
I have to remain pessimistic.

There was a time when the phrase "fair price for a fair service or product" ruled instead of figuring out how to gain a monopoly on a necessity of life so "what the market will bear" becomes as much as you want to charge!
Sounds like you're talking about a marriage.
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
If a wealthy individual in our society can increase that price to $750 a pill, what does that tell you about the power balance in our country?

Remember, it only backfired on him because he was obvious and extreme. The article highlights how Pharmaceutical companies are systematically doing this, but doing it in less blatantly so as to stay under the radar.

I'm not sure what moderated it in decades past, but it has now become "good business" in our capitalist society for companies to capture a market than jack the price up to the maximum that the market will bear.

Is it a matter of anti-trust laws being watered down through lobbying?

Since election campaigning is in action I hope this gets attention on both sides of the fence as something the Government needs to exert influence over. The people with money sure aren't going to fix it!!!

Actually, I do trust that there are people with money* who have a high sense of ethics.

I'll define "with money" as being among the 200 wealthiest families in USA.
 
Last edited:
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
I did a bit more reading on this. The active ingredient in the drug has been around since 1953 and has been used to combat malaria and more recently has been prescribed for some AIDS patients for specific reasons. There's a bit of journalistic dishonesty in simply calling attention to this by just calling it an AIDS drug and not acknowledging its other uses.

Be that as it may, the guy bought the rights to the drug for $55 million although it is said the actual cost to manufacture the active ingredient is dwarfed by labor costs. I think we are talking pennies here. What he bought was a very specific formulation of the active ingredient for sale in the US. He has also said his company would not deny the drug at significantly reduced prices or gratis depending upon individual economic means. This is not to exonerate what he did as the reading indicates he has done something similar with the drug Thiola where hijacked the price 20x which is no longer protected by a patent.

The new company is said to be planning to offer specific compounding (blends) of the active ingredient thereby getting around violating any Daraprim legal issues because the blends will be different. As to whether they will be successful might depend on how doctors write their prescriptions.

I don't want to see the government get involved as the pseudo free market seems to have effectively addressed the matter.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
… I don't want to see the government get involved as the pseudo free market seems to have effectively addressed the matter.
Pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing has been heavily regulated by the FDA since the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. Before that, the industry was an unregulated jungle, and was the source of the term "snake oil".

Probably the only thing that isn't carefully regulated is the price.

In the last 20 years or so, the most significant changes in pharmaceutical regulation have been government initiated changes in the laws extending the the patent and copyright protection of pharmaceuticals. These laws, heavily lobbied for by the pharmaceutical industry, have greatly extended the time period during which prescription medications are protected against price competition from the so-called generic medications. This is probably the greatest cause of the price gouging we now see. Blame Congress, not Federal Regulation.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
In the last 20 years or so, the most significant changes in pharmaceutical regulation have been government initiated changes in the laws extending the the patent and copyright protection of pharmaceuticals. These laws, heavily lobbied for by the pharmaceutical industry, have greatly extended the time period during which prescription medications are protected against price competition from the so-called generic medications. This is probably the greatest cause of the price gouging we now see. Blame Congress, not Federal Regulation.
I agree in theory but there's corporate greed involved, too. Just because someone leaves their keys in the car doesn't make it right for you to drive it.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
Pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing has been heavily regulated by the FDA since the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. Before that, the industry was an unregulated jungle, and was the source of the term "snake oil".
There's still plenty of snake oil as seen in the supplement industry, questionable devices and treatments like in the vet and chiropractic the industry, etc. But my comments were specifically directed to the matter of pharmaceuticals that are long since past their protected patents.

Probably the only thing that isn't carefully regulated is the price.
And in this thread we see an example of how an alternative will be offered that is even less than the original price.

In the last 20 years or so, the most significant changes in pharmaceutical regulation have been government initiated changes in the laws extending the the patent and copyright protection of pharmaceuticals. These laws, heavily lobbied for by the pharmaceutical industry, have greatly extended the time period during which prescription medications are protected against price competition from the so-called generic medications. This is probably the greatest cause of the price gouging we now see. Blame Congress, not Federal Regulation.
Well someone had to write the regulations. I think this is an example of crony capitalism, yes?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I agree in theory but there's corporate greed involved, too. Just because someone leaves their keys in the car doesn't make it right for you to drive it.
I didn't intend to say there wasn't corporate greed involved in this. I probably just didn't word it strongly enough.

So let me be completely clear. This is all about corporate greed. The big pharma companies have spent very large amounts of cash to buy the allegiance of those congressmen and senators to support big pharma's efforts at keeping drug prices unusually and unreasonably high in the USA. They were behind extending patent protection on their newly licensed products. It used to last for 19 years (if I recall correctly). Now it is much longer. Big pharma also funded the lobbying effort to prevent Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices. They were behind the failed effort at blocking any national health insurance. All because of corporate greed.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
There's still plenty of snake oil as seen in the supplement industry, questionable devices and treatments like in the vet and chiropractic the industry, etc. But my comments were specifically directed to the matter of pharmaceuticals that are long since past their protected patents.
The FDA, or any other federal agency NEVER had authority over food supplements, some medical devices (which ones do you mean when you say questionable?), some veterinarian practices, and the chiropractic world. If Congress could get its act together long enough to pass some laws, regulating some of these might be a good idea. But enough votes are owned by big pharma's lobby groups to prevent this.
And in this thread we see an example of how an alternative will be offered that is even less than the original price.
The example that started this thread is about a drug with a small and limited market. So small that the generic drug makers previously ignored it. They ignored it until that smug fool got too greedy, allowing them to undercut his price, which if I remember were jacked up by 55-fold over the previous price.

The Hedge fund field is virtually unregulated. Compared to the drug industry, it's as lawless as the wild west. That's where this smug fool made his cash. He decided he invest in pharma and try to operate by the same pirate methods, in a field where there is significant federal oversight in many aspects, all except finances. I'd guess the smarter Big Pharma companies are cursing this small timer for shining light on their game. I don't expect any immediate response from the politicians, but the reshaping of health insurance will ultimately limit the obscene profits big pharma now makes. This smug fool may have sped up that process.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Thanks for the link.

In reality, the issue of patents and intellectual property, as it applies to the big pharma world, is quite complex. It allows more than a few patent & IP lawyers to make a very good living. I've seen first-hand how no patent is worth anything unless the patent holder can aggressively defend it with lawyers and money.
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I don't want to see the government get involved as the pseudo free market seems to have effectively addressed the matter.
The "pseudo free market" has effectively addressed this one instance; and this company seems to have plans to follow the same approach with "several" other drugs.
However, the article states:
Pharmaceutical giants like Valeant and Pfizer are similarly buying up the rights to once-cheap off-patent drugs and hiking their prices many times over — albeit by less attention-grabbing increments at a time.
You've always struck me as being at least a little cynical. Do you really think you can assume the "several" this compounding company can address will keep up with the gyrations of Big Pharma?
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
The FDA, or any other federal agency NEVER had authority over food supplements, some medical devices (which ones do you mean when you say questionable?), some veterinarian practices, and the chiropractic world. If Congress could get its act together long enough to pass some laws, regulating some of these might be a good idea. But enough votes are owned by big pharma's lobby groups to prevent this.
Didn't say they did. Only pointing out to the food supplement industry also actively lobbies. I seem to recall something like that happened in California when Arnold was gov.
As to an example of a medical device that is dubious, look up therapy laser and see how it's being marketed to the vet and chiropractor industry. A somewhat personal anecdote as to the former maybe later.

The example that started this thread is about a drug with a small and limited market. So small that the generic drug makers previously ignored it. They ignored it until that smug fool got too greedy, allowing them to undercut his price, which if I remember were jacked up by 55-fold over the previous price.

The Hedge fund field is virtually unregulated. Compared to the drug industry, it's as lawless as the wild west. That's where this smug fool made his cash. He decided he invest in pharma and try to operate by the same pirate methods, in a field where there is significant federal oversight in many aspects, all except finances. I'd guess the smarter Big Pharma companies are cursing this small timer for shining light on their game. I don't expect any immediate response from the politicians, but the reshaping of health insurance will ultimately limit the obscene profits big pharma now makes. This smug fool may have sped up that process.
It's my hope that this guy got faulty analysis and is going to take a $55 million bath.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
The "pseudo free market" has effectively addressed this one instance; and this company seems to have plans to follow the same approach with "several" other drugs.
However, the article states:

You've always struck me as being at least a little cynical. Do you really think you can assume the "several" this compounding company can address will keep up with the gyrations of Big Pharma?
I am cynical and if I was this guy, I'd be looking into how this could play into his own business. Do you have a short list if the drugs you're thinking about?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Didn't say they did. Only pointing out to the food supplement industry also actively lobbies. I seem to recall something like that happened in California when Arnold was gov.
Agreed. But the food supplement industry can't hold a candle to the cash clout of Big Pharma. But they still try. In Virginia, the former governor, Bob MacDonald, was convicted and sentenced to jail time for taking bribes from a wealthy charlatan who was selling food supplements made from tobacco leaf :eek:.
As to an example of a medical device that is dubious, look up therapy laser and see how it's being marketed to the vet and chiropractor industry. A somewhat personal anecdote as to the former maybe later.
I'm not certain, but I think the FDA regulates medical devices that get inserted into the body, from tongue depressors to prostheses and implants such as stints. Medical devices also include diagnostic tools and instruments from CT scanners to blood test lab instrumentation.

I don't know if those therapy lasers are covered by the FDA law. Vets and chiropractors are more regulated by various different state laws than by the FDA.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
Whatever happened to people going into politics and then leaving after a reasonable number of years to rejoin the private sector?
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
"Corporate greed". I'm always a bit skeptical when I see this term.
How much profit is acceptable?
At what point does it become greed?
Who decides?

I see the UAW wants higher pay for workers at Ford and GM because their profits are up. When the guy that sweeps the floor gets $100/hr and wants a raise, is that greed? Same questions as above.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
"Corporate greed". I'm always a bit skeptical when I see this term.
How much profit is acceptable?
At what point does it become greed?
Who decides?

I see the UAW wants higher pay for workers at Ford and GM because their profits are up. When the guy that sweeps the floor gets $100/hr and wants a raise, is that greed? Same questions as above.
Well, I'm skeptical too but in this or these particular cases, the matter is one for drugs where the active ingredient is long past patent protection but a company is marketing it compounded with something else in a one pill formulation and they own the marketing rights for that. The something else seems to be ingredient(s) that mitigate the side effects of the active ingredient. So the consumer is paying for the privilege for the convenience of not taking two pills. At issue is what should be charged for the convenience. The company that sold the marketing rights for $55 million had been gradually increasing the price from about a dollar a pill to something like $13.50 or so. It's an increase, which over time, doesn't attract notice but adds substantially to the bottom line. And then there's this new guy who figures let's sell it shy of a grand per pill. I don't see it much different from selling bottled water to people in disaster areas for $20.

I think what we are going to find is that this guy isn't just being vilified by the public but also by established pharmaceuticals who are now going to find their specific compounded formulations where the active ingredient does not enjoy patent protection being scrutinized and outed. This may spur the creation of companies who will specialize in alternatives that are significantly less expensive. Capitalism, right!
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top