Finding ways to make generics super-profitable is definitely common. Turing is, arguably, the ugliest of the bunch, but there's more than enough ugly to go arou

Finding ways to make generics super-profitable is definitely common. Turing is, arguably, the ugliest of the bunch, but there's more than enough ugly to go around. Your mythical "honest and kindly pharma CEO who wants nothing but for everyone to have cheap drugs" doesn't exist. Its Shkreli's all the way down: http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/06/allow-big-pharma-rip-us/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/06/allow-big-pharma-rip-us/ Bill Moyers: For example, last February, before its patent expired on Namenda, its widely used drug to treat Alzheimer’s, Forest Laboratories announced it would stop selling the existing tablet form in favor of new extended-release capsules called Namenda XR. The capsules were just a reformulated version of the tablet. But even the minor change prevented pharmacists from substituting generic versions of the tablet. Result: Higher profits for Forest Labs and higher costs for you and me. Another technique is for drug companies to continue to aggressively advertise prescription brands long after their 20 year patents have expired, so patients ask their doctors for them. Many doctors will comply. America is one of few advanced nations that allow direct advertising of prescription drugs. A fourth tactic is for drug companies to pay the makers of generic drugs to delay their cheaper versions. These so-called “pay-for-delay” agreements generate big profits for both the proprietary manufacturers and the generics. But here again, you and I pay. The tactic costs us an estimated $3.5 billion a year. Europe doesn’t allow these sorts of payoffs, but they’re legal in the United States because the major drug makers and generics have fought off any legislative attempts to stop them.