4 ms·

It's so range inducing it's horrible. The guy is pure evil. Though, my question is, what does it mean "to acquire/own/have the rights to the drug"? If the drug

by trymas 11y ago

It's so range inducing it's horrible. The guy is pure evil. Though, my question is, what does it mean "to acquire/own/have the rights to the drug"? If the drug is 62 years old, knowledge about it should be in public domain and why can't some other company start making it?

DanBC 11y ago
He owns the company that is the only current company making the drug. That has some advantages (knowledge of process; supplier and distributor contacts; control of distribution) but eventually another company will enter the market and undercut the price. Other companies do similar things. Look at the treatment for Age-related Macular Degeneration - Avastin vs Lucentis. Avastin is older, and cheaper. It's as effective as Lucentis. The same company makes both. That company refuses to try to licence avastin for use with AMD, which forces (at least, in the UK) doctors to instead use the very similar but very much more expensive lucentis. The compnay claims there are problems with avastin, but really those problems arise from incompetent handling ("People might use non-sterile needles to inject avastin! Lucentis comes in a pre-sterilised package!". Well, if you're worried about people using dirty needles you need to fix a lot more about that hospital.) People are going blind because corporate greed.
aianus 11y ago
Because of government red tape and regulations and delays around creating a 'new' drug even if it's molecularly identical to an existing off-patent approved drug. If a quick run in the mass spectrometer was sufficient to start selling a generic, this crap wouldn't happen. I don't understand the knee-jerk calls for more regulation when it's clear that regulation is what's allowing this unethical business model to work.
tim333 11y ago
Apparently the problem is 'The FDA grants market exclusivity to companies that are willing to take “grandfathered” compounds into compliance with their current regulatory framework'. Which is why they are able to force US buyers to pay $700 a tablet for stuff which is available for a few cents in India at the same time. I think the FDA might not really be doing US consumers a favour by preventing them shopping around.

by trymas 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

He owns the company that is the only current company making the drug. That has some advantages (knowledge of process; supplier and distributor contacts; control of distribution) but eventually another company will enter the market and undercut the price. Other companies do similar things. Look at the treatment for Age-related Macular Degeneration - Avastin vs Lucentis. Avastin is older, and cheaper. It's as effective as Lucentis. The same company makes both. That company refuses to try to licence avastin for use with AMD, which forces (at least, in the UK) doctors to instead use the very similar but very much more expensive lucentis. The compnay claims there are problems with avastin, but really those problems arise from incompetent handling ("People might use non-sterile needles to inject avastin! Lucentis comes in a pre-sterilised package!". Well, if you're worried about people using dirty needles you need to fix a lot more about that hospital.) People are going blind because corporate greed.

aianus 11y ago

Because of government red tape and regulations and delays around creating a 'new' drug even if it's molecularly identical to an existing off-patent approved drug. If a quick run in the mass spectrometer was sufficient to start selling a generic, this crap wouldn't happen. I don't understand the knee-jerk calls for more regulation when it's clear that regulation is what's allowing this unethical business model to work.

tim333 11y ago

Apparently the problem is 'The FDA grants market exclusivity to companies that are willing to take “grandfathered” compounds into compliance with their current regulatory framework'. Which is why they are able to force US buyers to pay $700 a tablet for stuff which is available for a few cents in India at the same time. I think the FDA might not really be doing US consumers a favour by preventing them shopping around.