11 ms·

A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

117 points by davidf18 11y ago

antidaily 11y ago
I'm fairly sure this guy has been discussed here before. A year ago or so: https://web.archive.org/web/20150420142850/http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/09/11/the_most_unconscionable_drug_price_hike_i_have_yet_seen.php https://web.archive.org/web/20150420142850/http://pipeline.c...
- dang 11y ago
  Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8302451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8302451.
  - larrys 11y ago
    Feature request: Along those lines, I was trying to find an article (using algolia) which discussed different names for AWS service names confusion and it was useless for that purpose (given search terms I tried). Since I always clear my browser history I couldn't see the links that I had visited. A nice feature would be if there was a way to note which article links I clicked on or which comment threads I have visited. (If I comment then it's easy to find but I read more than I comment). That way I could just browse back that history and could have easily found that article that I was looking for.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      You can see which ones you've upvoted at https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=larrys https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=larrys (only works for you).
      - larrys 11y ago
        Thanks for that. But for some reason both that and the save comments seems incomplete. Hard to believe those are all of the stories I upvoted I upvote everything I read typically and upvote (from memory) more comments then "saved comments" indicates. Also "saved" should be "upvoted".
    - dang 11y ago
      We don't track what article links users click on. It might be nice data to have if it helped us measure story quality, but it would also cross a privacy line that doesn't feel right to us, either as HN users or community members or moderators. I suppose we could save/serve which comment threads users have visited but that would be a lot of data, so I wonder if it wouldn't just replace one needle-in-haystack problem with another.
jonknee 11y ago
My first thought was generics since it's so old, but this is simply amazing: > 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. How can this be true?
- raverbashing 11y ago
  Looks like 90% of drug regulations are BS sold with the excuse of "protecting the public" Importing a (tested) cheaper version would solve this price abuse pretty quickly but of course the government, AMA, etc loves to meddle (of course some control is necessary)
- ithought 11y ago
  If I remember correctly, when Provigil became generic, they bought the company producing the generic form. They also slightly changed the drug and patented a new form as Nuvigil. Last year, I asked my physician's assistant (I have never actually met my personal doctor) for a prescription and he told me that he didn't believe Provigil/Modafinil was even made anymore and tried almost emphatically to get me to take Nuvigil instead. I said no and that I'd try anyway. It was available and my insurance covered the Provigil ($750/month).
  - jimrandomh 11y ago
    Generic modafinil has a retail price of around $40/month. Your insurance is getting ripped off.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Yes, but ... > The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement resolving the Commission’s antitrust suit charging Cephalon, Inc. with illegally blocking generic competition to its blockbuster sleep-disorder drug Provigil. The settlement ensures that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., which acquired Cephalon in 2012, will make a total of $1.2 billion available to compensate purchasers, including drug wholesalers, pharmacies, and insurers, who overpaid because of Cephalon’s illegal conduct. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-settlement-cephalon-pay-delay-case-ensures-12-billion-ill https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-s...
larrys 11y ago
While shocking people have to keep in mind that pricing relates to more than cost but more importantly value. The fact that a particular product or service was priced a certain way for years is not as relevant as it might seem on the surface. I pay a very low price for a generic drug (copay doesn't even matter) but the value to me of the drug is much higher. The non generic version is priced perhaps 10 times as much but still provides value at that price. Perhaps these prices in the article are super inflated but my point is the fact that a drug was priced at $5 per tablet and now is $50 per tablet is not a non-starter in itself. Who cares what the % increase is? The question is does the drug provide value at $50 per tablet? Also a particular person's ability to pay doesn't really factor into this. I am sure the drug companies would love to be able to charge some classes of people more (Larry Ellison) and some less (jobless). But they are not allowed to do this. I know people's automatically will think "ripoff" (and maybe it is a "ripoff" whatever that is) however a price increase in itself does not indicate a ripoff. "Cycloserine, a drug used to treat dangerous multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, was just increased in price to $10,800 for 30 pills from $500 " Right and I don't take any drugs that even cost $500 for 30 pills (let alone $10,800). So this article could have just easily compared the pills that I buy 30 for $10 to 30 for $500 and written a similar article.
- powera 11y ago
  No, unless you feel that people who use medicine are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. Were it not for a (probably illegal in this case) monopoly, other people would be able to make that same pill for $5 per tablet. And then nobody would pay $50 for the pill. Supply and demand IS NOT the same as "charging everyone as much as they will pay for everything". It's inherently unfair to everyone who has to buy that thing, and that's why people think it's a rip-off, because it is. [edited to remove some hyperbole]
  - qsucvatz 11y ago
    Quite an opener, do you practice hyperbole often? Fairness is whatever two people will agree to pay for a service. Imagine how silly it would be if we all paid the same amount for seats on an airline - which is how it worked before deregulation. Many seats would go empty, the utility would not be maximized, and we'd be missing out on the great transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
pasbesoin 11y ago
There are people who are evil. I don't care what economic language in which they couch it. They deserve what they get -- and I hope it is coming to them, soon. (This is not a threat, just a strongly held sentiment.) P.S. I hope that micro-laboratories and production diversification will soon put a final "paid" to such exploitative strategies and tactics. Yeah, the "risk" of a chemistry and biologics lab in every back yard and basement... I'm increasingly of the sentiment that it is less than the increasing risk of autocratic and monopolistic control of centralized production and distribution. This is a somewhat surprising development in my own attitude, to me. As I recall observing all the bone-headed and sometimes downright risky and uncaring behavior of e.g. chemistry students, including potential majors -- and some of the instructors -- back in college. Part of me is strongly concerned about keeping them from poisoning others and whatever environment they find themselves in. Nonetheless, as I observe an increasing momentum towards artificial scarcity and profiteering -- often by people with no credit for making or enabling the original discoveries and creations -- I see decentralization as the only effective response. I, and many others, tried "playing by the rules." Turns out, they've been increasingly rigged, and us, screwed. I'm not the only one deciding, "you have to take care of yourself." Not just in general, but seemingly in every aspect.
- oconnor663 11y ago
  I think if we depend on people to Be Good when there are big financial incentives not to, we're already screwed. We have to look at why the incentives are bad. > 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. This should've been the second paragraph of the article, not buried near the bottom. The author seems to be expecting a system to make legal monopolies behave nicely. Instead we should stop creating legal monopolies.
- angersock 11y ago
  Well, these people are playing by the rules--the rules of the free market as rigged with regulation. If we as a society had said "You know, it's more important that we have a secure, available supply of this drug than to be friendly to corporate interests" and had acted accordingly, this would've gone a bit differently. As it is, the "legacy support" for pharmaceuticals is probably not going to be that large as new and improved things come out.
ikeboy 11y ago
On this topic, read http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/09/05/how-a-440000-drug-is-turning-alexion-into-biotechs-new-innovation-powerhouse/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/09/05/how-a-4....
steveeq1 11y ago
Ok, I am somewhat ignorant about how the drug system works in america, but theoretically, can one buy the drug where it's cheaper (say, India) via the darknet markets like silkroad or whatever and have it shipped to the US?
- mullen 11y ago
  Yes, but there are two problems: 1) You can't guarantee they are real. The upside of buying drugs in the US is that if you get fake pills, it is a huge deal and people get sued out of business for this. Rite Aid (A national drugstore chain) got caught shorting the pill count in prescriptions and they got into big trouble. 2) The Department of Homeland Security will open packages from companies that they suspect are selling medicines from abroad and shipping to the US and impound the pills. The odds are good that you won't get caught, but if you do, it can become a real hassle.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Neither are a problem. Typically, you don't get repeat business if you're selling fake pills, so online sellers of prescription drugs almost always provide you with what you're buying. This applies to both prescription drugs as well as recreational drugs purchased through darknets. Regarding DHS and CBP, both are overblown concerns. You'll receive a letter in the mail noting they've confiscated the material in question, which you usually send to the seller who will replace the shipment at no charge to you.
    - computer 11y ago
      (Heavy metal or other) contamination of the drugs you receive could be an issue. Who's testing the India-/China-produced drug? You might receive an Official batch that may or may not be checked by their local governments, but it might also be from a more shady source.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 11y ago
tuna-piano 11y ago
The thing that I think many people are ignoring is the positive effect that high drug prices (& profits) leads to in the economy. Economic resources such as entrepeneurs, capital, equipment and scientists follow the money. If there's money to be made on Wall street, resources go there. If there's money to be made in mobile apps, resources go there. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the price being so high now shows that the people buying it at that price truly value it that much. When it comes down to it, many people are willing to spend almost anything to stay alive and healthy. The extremely high prices (and therefore profits) for specific drugs simply leads more resources to go into the development of additional similar money-making and life saving drugs. It would be a shame if we capped drug prices at some artificially low level, as that lowers the incentive for additional resources to develop additional drugs.
- foxhill 11y ago
  i'm sorry, i'm all for market incentives to drive product development, but this is people's lives you're incentivising here. previously affordable treatment will be out of reach for many. there is a human cost to this (i'm sure otherwise sound) decision. this must not be forgotten.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Extorting people over their own deaths is not useful economic activity.
- dijit 11y ago
  No offence to you, but you're so capitalist it's to the detriment of human health and you should be ashamed. I'm asthmatic, My life can cease in a pretty painful way if I'm denied access to drugs- my illness is an easily preventable one, so why should I die gasping? You're right I'll pay anything to keep living.. I'll literally starve before I stop paying for my medication. But why would you wish that upon me? Because drug companies can have an extra slice of pie?-- forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't private healthcare mostly about making shareholders rich and -not- about significant R&D on preventable diseases (which would then be a tax on the ill for their life). I come from a country with social healthcare, I grew up the product of a bottle of whiskey and a bad decision, thus, poor.. I'm currently putting more money into my government through taxes than I ever could have possibly taken out- but given the draconian practises you seem to favour, I would have died as a child because there is no way my mother could have afforded to buy my medication -and- keep me fed.
jkimmel 11y ago
It appears Martin Shkreli has tried this a couple times before. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/02/20/more_price_hikes_on_obscure_medication http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/02/20/mor... In the past, he actually planned to limit access to the existing drug (ie. the one he increased the price on) to prevent a competitor from creating a new generic formulation and gaining FDA approval. It appears he modeled this heinous approach on a maneuver by Celgene to prevent production of generic thalidomide. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/09/11/the_most_unconscionable_drug_price_hike_i_have_yet_seen http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/09/11/the... It seems to me that the FDA needs sharper teeth in this arena to ensure access to an existing drug is not a limiting factor in the approval of generics.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Celgene are currently engaged in shenanigans in the UK. There are currently two main chemotherapies used for pancreatic cancer in England. First line is folfirinox. But that can have nasty side effects, so the less effective gemcitabine is used because it has less side effects. Celgene make abraxane. Abraxane (by Celgene's own data) isn't as good as current first treatment; and has many side effects so can't be used as second line treatment. Celgene's data shows median life extension on abraxane as two months. A charity - pancreaticcanceraction.org - has started a petition to get NICE to change the decision. The petition states abraxane gives two years extra life which is true for a few people. Equally true would be "abraxane gives two days extra life". The shenanigans come from the amount of funding and campaigning material Celgene has provided to pancreaticcanceraction.org, while making it seem like they don't have any connection. https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/the-cost-of-nab-paclitaxel-is-not-justified-by-its-limited-benefit-says-nice-in-draft-guidance-2 https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/the-cost-of-nab... https://pancreaticcanceraction.org/news/english-patients-nice-decides-fund-abraxane/ https://pancreaticcanceraction.org/news/english-patients-nic...
zo1 11y ago
I kept writing, scrapping and re-writing responses to you. Trying different ideas/methods/examples, perhaps to hopefully enlighten you to alternative ways of thinking about this topic. And then I realized that it probably won't work. You seem to be under the impression that this individual seeks ill towards you. That he values monetary profit over your well-being in some sort of immoral way, evil way. You've been heavily influenced, through many years I would assume, into this line of thinking. Nothing I could possibly say could sway you. No example, no idea, no persuasive argument. I believe this is due to your beliefs not being rational at all. Instead, I'll just implore you to do one thing. Don't bring a child into this world without knowing you personally can take care of all it's basic needs (if it came to it), with minimal state intervention. Which is something your creators didn't do for you, but hopefully you'll learn something from that and break the cycle. Good luck to you. *Edit. Added the word "basic" to clarify my point a little.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Wow, in a single comment you've managed to do the following: - Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject, implying the only reason then could hold their belief is because they cannot or will not think about this subject in other ways. - Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically invested in a point of view that is influenced by others. So apparently it's not the parent's fault. They've just been manipulated into not being able to form their own opinions. - Imply that the parent in currently inadequate in their knowledge of what it takes to raise a child. I have a lot of not very nice things I would like to say at this point, but that would be counter-productive to the point of this comment, so I'll distill it to this: Don't do this. You have attacked someone in a very personal way, even if it's marginally hidden behind wishing them well. Not only is it against the rules here, but it's just plain a horrible thing to do, and doesn't reflect well on you at all.
  - zo1 11y ago
    >"Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject" They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/personal/emotional way. I didn't "cast" them into that. >"Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically invested in a point of view that is influenced by others." Again, the person I responded to had a very clear emotional/irrational reaction to a reasonable alternative to the prevailing thought on the subject.
tim333 11y ago
>Doxycycline, an antibiotic, went from $20 a bottle in October 2013 to $1,849 by April 2014, according to the two lawmakers wft? I'm kind of confused. Wikipedia says "Doxycycline is available as a generic medicine and is not very expensive. The wholesale cost is between 0.01 and 0.04 USD per pill." Why on earth are they paying $1,849 a bottle? Maybe they are only allowed to buy of certain suppliers with FDA licences or some such rather than just buying it from India for a few cents? edit: I see the " $750 a tablet" "Daraprim, known generically as pyrimethamine" is avilable on AliBaba for "US $1-10 / Kilogram " http://india.alibaba.com/country/products_india-pyrimethamine.html http://india.alibaba.com/country/products_india-pyrimethamin... Some weird import restrictions going on I guess?
- acveilleux 11y ago
  The rules for pharmaceutics manufacturing in the western world are very strict. Any competent university lab could turn up a few Kg of pyrimethamine. You need a GMP compliant FDA-approved facility to make it for medical use.
ExpiredLink 11y ago
>> “This seems to be all profit driven for somebody,” she said, “and I just think it’s a very dangerous process.” Don't worry! It's just capitalism.
port6667 11y ago
This is scary. If the TPP passes, drug pricing will suddenly rise in every country, not just USA.

117 points by davidf18 11y ago

I'm fairly sure this guy has been discussed here before. A year ago or so: https://web.archive.org/web/20150420142850/http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/09/11/the_most_unconscionable_drug_price_hike_i_have_yet_seen.php https://web.archive.org/web/20150420142850/http://pipeline.c...

dang 11y ago
Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8302451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8302451.
- larrys 11y ago
  Feature request: Along those lines, I was trying to find an article (using algolia) which discussed different names for AWS service names confusion and it was useless for that purpose (given search terms I tried). Since I always clear my browser history I couldn't see the links that I had visited. A nice feature would be if there was a way to note which article links I clicked on or which comment threads I have visited. (If I comment then it's easy to find but I read more than I comment). That way I could just browse back that history and could have easily found that article that I was looking for.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    You can see which ones you've upvoted at https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=larrys https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=larrys (only works for you).
    - larrys 11y ago
      Thanks for that. But for some reason both that and the save comments seems incomplete. Hard to believe those are all of the stories I upvoted I upvote everything I read typically and upvote (from memory) more comments then "saved comments" indicates. Also "saved" should be "upvoted".
  - dang 11y ago
    We don't track what article links users click on. It might be nice data to have if it helped us measure story quality, but it would also cross a privacy line that doesn't feel right to us, either as HN users or community members or moderators. I suppose we could save/serve which comment threads users have visited but that would be a lot of data, so I wonder if it wouldn't just replace one needle-in-haystack problem with another.

jonknee 11y ago

My first thought was generics since it's so old, but this is simply amazing: > 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. How can this be true?

raverbashing 11y ago
Looks like 90% of drug regulations are BS sold with the excuse of "protecting the public" Importing a (tested) cheaper version would solve this price abuse pretty quickly but of course the government, AMA, etc loves to meddle (of course some control is necessary)
ithought 11y ago
If I remember correctly, when Provigil became generic, they bought the company producing the generic form. They also slightly changed the drug and patented a new form as Nuvigil. Last year, I asked my physician's assistant (I have never actually met my personal doctor) for a prescription and he told me that he didn't believe Provigil/Modafinil was even made anymore and tried almost emphatically to get me to take Nuvigil instead. I said no and that I'd try anyway. It was available and my insurance covered the Provigil ($750/month).
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  Generic modafinil has a retail price of around $40/month. Your insurance is getting ripped off.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yes, but ... > The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement resolving the Commission’s antitrust suit charging Cephalon, Inc. with illegally blocking generic competition to its blockbuster sleep-disorder drug Provigil. The settlement ensures that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., which acquired Cephalon in 2012, will make a total of $1.2 billion available to compensate purchasers, including drug wholesalers, pharmacies, and insurers, who overpaid because of Cephalon’s illegal conduct. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-settlement-cephalon-pay-delay-case-ensures-12-billion-ill https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-s...

larrys 11y ago

While shocking people have to keep in mind that pricing relates to more than cost but more importantly value. The fact that a particular product or service was priced a certain way for years is not as relevant as it might seem on the surface. I pay a very low price for a generic drug (copay doesn't even matter) but the value to me of the drug is much higher. The non generic version is priced perhaps 10 times as much but still provides value at that price. Perhaps these prices in the article are super inflated but my point is the fact that a drug was priced at $5 per tablet and now is $50 per tablet is not a non-starter in itself. Who cares what the % increase is? The question is does the drug provide value at $50 per tablet? Also a particular person's ability to pay doesn't really factor into this. I am sure the drug companies would love to be able to charge some classes of people more (Larry Ellison) and some less (jobless). But they are not allowed to do this. I know people's automatically will think "ripoff" (and maybe it is a "ripoff" whatever that is) however a price increase in itself does not indicate a ripoff. "Cycloserine, a drug used to treat dangerous multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, was just increased in price to $10,800 for 30 pills from $500 " Right and I don't take any drugs that even cost $500 for 30 pills (let alone $10,800). So this article could have just easily compared the pills that I buy 30 for $10 to 30 for $500 and written a similar article.

powera 11y ago
No, unless you feel that people who use medicine are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. Were it not for a (probably illegal in this case) monopoly, other people would be able to make that same pill for $5 per tablet. And then nobody would pay $50 for the pill. Supply and demand IS NOT the same as "charging everyone as much as they will pay for everything". It's inherently unfair to everyone who has to buy that thing, and that's why people think it's a rip-off, because it is. [edited to remove some hyperbole]
- qsucvatz 11y ago
  Quite an opener, do you practice hyperbole often? Fairness is whatever two people will agree to pay for a service. Imagine how silly it would be if we all paid the same amount for seats on an airline - which is how it worked before deregulation. Many seats would go empty, the utility would not be maximized, and we'd be missing out on the great transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

pasbesoin 11y ago

There are people who are evil. I don't care what economic language in which they couch it. They deserve what they get -- and I hope it is coming to them, soon. (This is not a threat, just a strongly held sentiment.) P.S. I hope that micro-laboratories and production diversification will soon put a final "paid" to such exploitative strategies and tactics. Yeah, the "risk" of a chemistry and biologics lab in every back yard and basement... I'm increasingly of the sentiment that it is less than the increasing risk of autocratic and monopolistic control of centralized production and distribution. This is a somewhat surprising development in my own attitude, to me. As I recall observing all the bone-headed and sometimes downright risky and uncaring behavior of e.g. chemistry students, including potential majors -- and some of the instructors -- back in college. Part of me is strongly concerned about keeping them from poisoning others and whatever environment they find themselves in. Nonetheless, as I observe an increasing momentum towards artificial scarcity and profiteering -- often by people with no credit for making or enabling the original discoveries and creations -- I see decentralization as the only effective response. I, and many others, tried "playing by the rules." Turns out, they've been increasingly rigged, and us, screwed. I'm not the only one deciding, "you have to take care of yourself." Not just in general, but seemingly in every aspect.

oconnor663 11y ago
I think if we depend on people to Be Good when there are big financial incentives not to, we're already screwed. We have to look at why the incentives are bad. > 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. This should've been the second paragraph of the article, not buried near the bottom. The author seems to be expecting a system to make legal monopolies behave nicely. Instead we should stop creating legal monopolies.
angersock 11y ago
Well, these people are playing by the rules--the rules of the free market as rigged with regulation. If we as a society had said "You know, it's more important that we have a secure, available supply of this drug than to be friendly to corporate interests" and had acted accordingly, this would've gone a bit differently. As it is, the "legacy support" for pharmaceuticals is probably not going to be that large as new and improved things come out.

ikeboy 11y ago

On this topic, read http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/09/05/how-a-440000-drug-is-turning-alexion-into-biotechs-new-innovation-powerhouse/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/09/05/how-a-4....

steveeq1 11y ago

Ok, I am somewhat ignorant about how the drug system works in america, but theoretically, can one buy the drug where it's cheaper (say, India) via the darknet markets like silkroad or whatever and have it shipped to the US?

mullen 11y ago
Yes, but there are two problems: 1) You can't guarantee they are real. The upside of buying drugs in the US is that if you get fake pills, it is a huge deal and people get sued out of business for this. Rite Aid (A national drugstore chain) got caught shorting the pill count in prescriptions and they got into big trouble. 2) The Department of Homeland Security will open packages from companies that they suspect are selling medicines from abroad and shipping to the US and impound the pills. The odds are good that you won't get caught, but if you do, it can become a real hassle.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Neither are a problem. Typically, you don't get repeat business if you're selling fake pills, so online sellers of prescription drugs almost always provide you with what you're buying. This applies to both prescription drugs as well as recreational drugs purchased through darknets. Regarding DHS and CBP, both are overblown concerns. You'll receive a letter in the mail noting they've confiscated the material in question, which you usually send to the seller who will replace the shipment at no charge to you.
  - computer 11y ago
    (Heavy metal or other) contamination of the drugs you receive could be an issue. Who's testing the India-/China-produced drug? You might receive an Official batch that may or may not be checked by their local governments, but it might also be from a more shady source.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
11y ago

tuna-piano 11y ago

The thing that I think many people are ignoring is the positive effect that high drug prices (& profits) leads to in the economy. Economic resources such as entrepeneurs, capital, equipment and scientists follow the money. If there's money to be made on Wall street, resources go there. If there's money to be made in mobile apps, resources go there. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the price being so high now shows that the people buying it at that price truly value it that much. When it comes down to it, many people are willing to spend almost anything to stay alive and healthy. The extremely high prices (and therefore profits) for specific drugs simply leads more resources to go into the development of additional similar money-making and life saving drugs. It would be a shame if we capped drug prices at some artificially low level, as that lowers the incentive for additional resources to develop additional drugs.

foxhill 11y ago
i'm sorry, i'm all for market incentives to drive product development, but this is people's lives you're incentivising here. previously affordable treatment will be out of reach for many. there is a human cost to this (i'm sure otherwise sound) decision. this must not be forgotten.
thrownaway2424 11y ago
I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Extorting people over their own deaths is not useful economic activity.
dijit 11y ago
No offence to you, but you're so capitalist it's to the detriment of human health and you should be ashamed. I'm asthmatic, My life can cease in a pretty painful way if I'm denied access to drugs- my illness is an easily preventable one, so why should I die gasping? You're right I'll pay anything to keep living.. I'll literally starve before I stop paying for my medication. But why would you wish that upon me? Because drug companies can have an extra slice of pie?-- forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't private healthcare mostly about making shareholders rich and -not- about significant R&D on preventable diseases (which would then be a tax on the ill for their life). I come from a country with social healthcare, I grew up the product of a bottle of whiskey and a bad decision, thus, poor.. I'm currently putting more money into my government through taxes than I ever could have possibly taken out- but given the draconian practises you seem to favour, I would have died as a child because there is no way my mother could have afforded to buy my medication -and- keep me fed.

jkimmel 11y ago

It appears Martin Shkreli has tried this a couple times before. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/02/20/more_price_hikes_on_obscure_medication http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/02/20/mor... In the past, he actually planned to limit access to the existing drug (ie. the one he increased the price on) to prevent a competitor from creating a new generic formulation and gaining FDA approval. It appears he modeled this heinous approach on a maneuver by Celgene to prevent production of generic thalidomide. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/09/11/the_most_unconscionable_drug_price_hike_i_have_yet_seen http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/09/11/the... It seems to me that the FDA needs sharper teeth in this arena to ensure access to an existing drug is not a limiting factor in the approval of generics.

DanBC 11y ago
Celgene are currently engaged in shenanigans in the UK. There are currently two main chemotherapies used for pancreatic cancer in England. First line is folfirinox. But that can have nasty side effects, so the less effective gemcitabine is used because it has less side effects. Celgene make abraxane. Abraxane (by Celgene's own data) isn't as good as current first treatment; and has many side effects so can't be used as second line treatment. Celgene's data shows median life extension on abraxane as two months. A charity - pancreaticcanceraction.org - has started a petition to get NICE to change the decision. The petition states abraxane gives two years extra life which is true for a few people. Equally true would be "abraxane gives two days extra life". The shenanigans come from the amount of funding and campaigning material Celgene has provided to pancreaticcanceraction.org, while making it seem like they don't have any connection. https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/the-cost-of-nab-paclitaxel-is-not-justified-by-its-limited-benefit-says-nice-in-draft-guidance-2 https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/the-cost-of-nab... https://pancreaticcanceraction.org/news/english-patients-nice-decides-fund-abraxane/ https://pancreaticcanceraction.org/news/english-patients-nic...

zo1 11y ago

I kept writing, scrapping and re-writing responses to you. Trying different ideas/methods/examples, perhaps to hopefully enlighten you to alternative ways of thinking about this topic. And then I realized that it probably won't work. You seem to be under the impression that this individual seeks ill towards you. That he values monetary profit over your well-being in some sort of immoral way, evil way. You've been heavily influenced, through many years I would assume, into this line of thinking. Nothing I could possibly say could sway you. No example, no idea, no persuasive argument. I believe this is due to your beliefs not being rational at all. Instead, I'll just implore you to do one thing. Don't bring a child into this world without knowing you personally can take care of all it's basic needs (if it came to it), with minimal state intervention. Which is something your creators didn't do for you, but hopefully you'll learn something from that and break the cycle. Good luck to you. *Edit. Added the word "basic" to clarify my point a little.

kbenson 11y ago
Wow, in a single comment you've managed to do the following: - Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject, implying the only reason then could hold their belief is because they cannot or will not think about this subject in other ways. - Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically invested in a point of view that is influenced by others. So apparently it's not the parent's fault. They've just been manipulated into not being able to form their own opinions. - Imply that the parent in currently inadequate in their knowledge of what it takes to raise a child. I have a lot of not very nice things I would like to say at this point, but that would be counter-productive to the point of this comment, so I'll distill it to this: Don't do this. You have attacked someone in a very personal way, even if it's marginally hidden behind wishing them well. Not only is it against the rules here, but it's just plain a horrible thing to do, and doesn't reflect well on you at all.
- zo1 11y ago
  >"Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject" They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/personal/emotional way. I didn't "cast" them into that. >"Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically invested in a point of view that is influenced by others." Again, the person I responded to had a very clear emotional/irrational reaction to a reasonable alternative to the prevailing thought on the subject.

tim333 11y ago

>Doxycycline, an antibiotic, went from $20 a bottle in October 2013 to $1,849 by April 2014, according to the two lawmakers wft? I'm kind of confused. Wikipedia says "Doxycycline is available as a generic medicine and is not very expensive. The wholesale cost is between 0.01 and 0.04 USD per pill." Why on earth are they paying $1,849 a bottle? Maybe they are only allowed to buy of certain suppliers with FDA licences or some such rather than just buying it from India for a few cents? edit: I see the " $750 a tablet" "Daraprim, known generically as pyrimethamine" is avilable on AliBaba for "US $1-10 / Kilogram " http://india.alibaba.com/country/products_india-pyrimethamine.html http://india.alibaba.com/country/products_india-pyrimethamin... Some weird import restrictions going on I guess?

acveilleux 11y ago
The rules for pharmaceutics manufacturing in the western world are very strict. Any competent university lab could turn up a few Kg of pyrimethamine. You need a GMP compliant FDA-approved facility to make it for medical use.

ExpiredLink 11y ago

>> “This seems to be all profit driven for somebody,” she said, “and I just think it’s a very dangerous process.” Don't worry! It's just capitalism.

port6667 11y ago

This is scary. If the TPP passes, drug pricing will suddenly rise in every country, not just USA.