Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drug make raises prescription price 3,200%

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    (...)
    Soon, there will be no new drug developed, that cure for cancer, one to prevent and treat Alzheimer or any safer cheaper drugs to replace current ones with issues of side effects and high cost. The "Leaches" and Progressives will soon make sure of that all future drug research ends up being eliminated as all the US drug companies complete their move to Asia or declare bankruptcy.

    3,200% increase in price? Overseas discounted prices where zero money is made to invest in super expensive research?
    Not really,

    http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium...ncer-treatment

    According to the association, “currently, at least 513 clinical research studies into new cancer drugs are taking place in Belgian centres, which amounts to one third of all clinical studies in our country. Thanks to these studies, over 228,000 Belgian patients have had quick and free access to new cancer treatments over the last 6 years. Furthermore, the reimbursement of 15 cancer drugs was approved last year. The European Medicines Agency is expected to approve several pioneering treatments developed in part in Belgium in 2015,” adds the association.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Look at MRI costs in the US. These vary from around as little as $300 or $400 to as much as several thousand in the same market.

    http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012...-or-3000-both/

    Why is that? It has to do with the facility and how they take payment.
    Low cost MRI's generally are cash, done by companies that do only a limited number of other things, and operate independently.
    Big hospitals and operations that rely on insurance payments inflate their prices not just because they can soak the insurers (who can spread their costs over lots of subscribers), but also to make up for things like having to treat deadbeats and the uninsured who can't pay even at the cheaper rates.

    So, once again, government regulation and rules are a major cause of driving up prices in a market.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You're completely off topic. We're talking about the pharma industry, which is like Big Oil - taking in record profits for over-priced drugs that often carry lethal side effects.

    If you want to know a drugs true costs, check what it goes for in third world nations, sold by the same companies that gouge everything they can out of the rest of the world for the same product.

    You do understand the significance of a 3,200% price increase in real terms, right?
    Tell that to Paddyboy "Please explain why the financial sector acted in a similar manner despite years of deregulation..... "

    Soon, there will be no new drug developed, that cure for cancer, one to prevent and treat Alzheimer or any safer cheaper drugs to replace current ones with issues of side effects and high cost. The "Leaches" and Progressives will soon make sure of that all future drug research ends up being eliminated as all the US drug companies complete their move to Asia or declare bankruptcy.

    3,200% increase in price? Overseas discounted prices where zero money is made to invest in super expensive research? Counterfeit drugs from China and Pakistan? The day is rapidly coming where many of the current drugs will not be available for any price. Since 2011, there is already a shortage of several drugs hospitals have in stock for emergency treatment. It will get far worse as Omamacare take over all health care in this country. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/27/hospital-drug-shortages-deadly-costly.html
    Last edited by SRV Ron; 28 Apr 16, 16:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Given that each country in the EU has its own health system and therefore its own drug acquisition policies and arrangements can you back this up with some explanation and evidence please? The British Health Service has been suffering from the same greedy policies by some pharma companies who recently put up prices on some essential drugs manyfold.
    I'll start here:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402967/

    In this paper we study six countries (UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden) in order to gain insight into the effects of various regulatory measures on originator and generic prices. The selection of the countries is based on two primary criteria. We have selected large and widely referenced markets like Germany, France and the UK. In addition we have chosen countries with an interesting policy mix, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark. Germany (which is the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world) provides an interesting combination of free pricing for in-patent drugs and reference pricing for off-patent drugs. The United Kingdom is also a large market and is known for its unique indirect price regulation via rate-of-return regulation (profit controls) and for explicitly tackling the demand-side through a mix of regulatory measures such as claw-backs and incentives (e.g. prescribing guidelines, monitoring and budgets).

    What the authors conclude is that government policies in each country vary some but all have the effect of limiting the amount pharma companies can charge for any drug, new or out-of-patent.
    For new drugs, the profit controls mean that the company has to go elsewhere to make up the difference or face a loss on R & D costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
    People should be concerned about Valeant's shady practices. For the past few months they've been making the business news in Canada for all sorts of questionable practices. IIRC they were accused of accounting irregularities related to non-arm's length subsidiary pharmacies.

    See below for a start
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...to-pariah.html
    I did not look at the link yet as I'm short on time right now, but it is never a good idea to sell a pharmaceutical company to a hedge fund manager.
    This company has been buying up all the competition, shutting down the production laying those employees off so they can drive up the cost of their own formula.
    The system in the US is out of control for many reasons. But we can not deny a big part of the problem is these companies throw money around Wash. D.C. And offer high paying jobs to FDA inspectors. The same reason our bank regulators do very little regulating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well there's no such thing as free lunch, somebody pays
    Yeah...the sick and the dying. So what does that make the pharma companies? Leeches preying on victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdrianE
    replied
    People should be concerned about Valeant's shady practices. For the past few months they've been making the business news in Canada for all sorts of questionable practices. IIRC they were accused of accounting irregularities related to non-arm's length subsidiary pharmacies.

    See below for a start
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...to-pariah.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    Apples and oranges, not at all related to the topic of extreme greed in pricing orphan and patented drugs.

    Federal interference by key Democrats forced the lending institutions to make risky home loans at abnormally low adjustable interest rates to those, usually poor minorities, that couldn't qualify for them in the first place. Others, taking advantage of those low rates, were encouraged to buy way more than what they could afford. This caused a massive spike in home prices. Those risky mortgages were then consolidated and sold to major investors with the promise of Federal backing through Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. When those loans started defaulting en mass due to economic conditions, the housing market collapsed resulting in numerous upside down loans in foreclosures the banks got stuck with. The Feds were then forced into baling them out or lose their backing credibility.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...007%E2%80%9308
    You're completely off topic. We're talking about the pharma industry, which is like Big Oil - taking in record profits for over-priced drugs that often carry lethal side effects.

    If you want to know a drugs true costs, check what it goes for in third world nations, sold by the same companies that gouge everything they can out of the rest of the world for the same product.

    You do understand the significance of a 3,200% price increase in real terms, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well there's no such thing as free lunch, somebody pays
    While this doesn't necessarily justify Valeant's 3200% price hike, it is an inescapable fact of life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Well there's no such thing as free lunch, somebody pays

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Given that each country in the EU has its own health system and therefore its own drug acquisition policies and arrangements can you back this up with some explanation and evidence please? The British Health Service has been suffering from the same greedy policies by some pharma companies who recently put up prices on some essential drugs manyfold.
    If the U.S. imposed Euro-style price controls, pharmaceutical R&D would dry up faster than a puddle of water in Death Valley...
    How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe
    BY ELIZABETH WHITMAN @ELIZABETHWHITTY ON 09/24/15

    The price of a medical miracle varies by country. Imatinib -- also known as Gleevec -- was hailed as a miracle cure to treat chronic myeloid leukemia, a rare type of cancer, upon the drug's approval in 2001. In the U.S., a year of treatment cost $92,000 in 2013. Everywhere else in the world, including in developed countries, it cost far less. Germany’s price tag was $54,000. In the U.K., it was $33,500 for annual care.

    Medicines in the U.S. frequently cost significantly more than the same versions in other advanced countries. The ongoing scrutiny over drug pricing systems, in the spotlight this week following the decision of Turing Pharmaceuticals to raise the price of its drug Daraprim from $13.50 per pill to $750, has reignited debate over price controls in the U.S. But what often goes overlooked in these discussions is the fact that pricey medicines in the U.S. actually subsidize research and development for the rest of the world, and for all the proposals to lower drug prices in the U.S., a solution to this particular imbalance is nowhere in sight.

    “It’s not fair that people in France pay a lot less for drugs than we do here. But there’s not much we can do about it,” Mick Kolassa, founding partner of Medical Marketing Economics, a consulting firm based in Mississippi, said.

    In Europe, drug prices are set by governments, not by pharmaceutical companies the way they are in the U.S. On average, the difference between the price of one drug in the U.S. and the same drug in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. was 50 percent, an analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey has found.

    “U.S. consumers are in fact subsidizing other countries’ public health systems, at least with respect to drug pricing,” Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor at New York Law School, said.

    These price discrepancies and their implications are well known throughout the industry but rarely discussed outside of it. Pharmaceutical companies have long defended the high price of drugs as necessary to pay for the research and development of new drugs, but the differences in pricing essentially means that consumers in the U.S. are contributing more than those in other countries. The U.S. accounted for 46 percent of global life sciences research and development--the vast majority of which is in biopharmaceuticals--according to the December 2013 issue of R&D Magazine.

    [...]

    Drug companies could cover the costs of the same research by lowering prices—companies would simply have to accept lower profits, against the will of shareholders and investors, and lower executive compensation, critics say. Some also point to excessive sales and marketing costs as pushing up drug prices—and sometimes even exceeding spending on research and development.

    [...]

    The average cost of developing a new drug ranges from $800 million to $1.2 billion and takes an average of 10 to 15 years from initial discovery to being delivered to the patient, according to the Indiana-based drug company Eli Lilly. In 2014, the company had more than $19.6 in revenue, of which $4.73 billion, or 24 percent, went to R&D, according to its 2014 annual report.

    [...]

    To Kolassa, popular outrage over drug pricing can be partially explained by a lack of understanding that drugs simply cost money. “We’ve got a real problem, that people want drugs to be free but don’t understand that the new ones only come out of the old ones,” he said. “We tend to not appreciate the value of pharmaceuticals,” he added.

    As a result, whether pricing structures are fair or not, the fact that other developed countries pay less for drugs has another consequence that is often overlooked: “It limits the availability of new drugs,” Kolassa said.

    [...]

    http://www.ibtimes.com/how-us-subsid...europe-2112662


    The standard socialist response to this is:

    Drug companies could cover the costs of the same research by lowering prices—companies would simply have to accept lower profits, against the will of shareholders and investors, and lower executive compensation, critics say. Some also point to excessive sales and marketing costs as pushing up drug prices—and sometimes even exceeding spending on research and development.


    Pharmaceutical companies are not in business to to R&D and create miracle drugs for the good of humanity. They are in business to make money for the shareholders and investors PERIOD. If they were forced to cut prices they would cut R&D to $0 before they would sacrifice earnings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Well they "force" them in the sense they make them an offer that's very hard to refuse.

    Remove R&D costs and patent rights and sell xxxx units, or sell x units at full price.

    Note that doesn't work for all - only products that are easily reproduced.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Socialized healthcare.

    If your product is incorporated (made reimbursable) into one of the major European healthcare systems sales will skyrocket.

    In a true free market a single dose will cost infinitely more, but total sales will be insignificant by comparison.

    So if you produce an easily reproduced product, Socialism - in this case - is more profitable, and will in the end outweigh research costs.

    It's still market economics - only the state performs the function of a (massive) predictable consumer.
    Still doesn't explain the statement that the EU forced pharmacos not to recover research and development costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Given that each country in the EU has its own health system and therefore its own drug acquisition policies and arrangements can you back this up with some explanation and evidence please? The British Health Service has been suffering from the same greedy policies by some pharma companies who recently put up prices on some essential drugs manyfold.
    Socialized healthcare.

    If your product is incorporated (made reimbursable) into one of the major European healthcare systems sales will skyrocket.

    In a true free market a single dose will cost infinitely more, but total sales will be insignificant by comparison.

    So if you produce an easily reproduced product, Socialism - in this case - is more profitable, and will in the end outweigh research costs.

    It's still market economics - only the state performs the function of a (massive) predictable consumer.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 28 Apr 16, 08:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
    Please explain why the financial sector acted in a similar manner despite years of deregulation.....
    Apples and oranges, not at all related to the topic of extreme greed in pricing orphan and patented drugs.

    Federal interference by key Democrats forced the lending institutions to make risky home loans at abnormally low adjustable interest rates to those, usually poor minorities, that couldn't qualify for them in the first place. Others, taking advantage of those low rates, were encouraged to buy way more than what they could afford. This caused a massive spike in home prices. Those risky mortgages were then consolidated and sold to major investors with the promise of Federal backing through Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. When those loans started defaulting en mass due to economic conditions, the housing market collapsed resulting in numerous upside down loans in foreclosures the banks got stuck with. The Feds were then forced into baling them out or lose their backing credibility.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...007%E2%80%9308

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X