5 ms·
If you're trying to troll on the sly you'll need to be a bit more subtle than that. I'd suggest most people who dislike Shkreli know that he massively jacked up
If you're trying to troll on the sly you'll need to be a bit more subtle than that. I'd suggest most people who dislike Shkreli know that he massively jacked up the price of a drug that there were no legal alternatives to, even if they don't know or can't remember the exact details. For those that want to learn more, search online for daraprim.
EDIT: alex95, your comment is flagged as dead, many people reading this won't see it. I know the excuses Skreli gave, about using the revenue to fund new drugs, but I don't buy it, and the reason I don't buy it is because he jacked up the price so much he was putting the life of some people in danger. That doesn't strike me as a move someone who cared about improving healthcare would make.
AFAIK the drug was free for everyone without insurance, so the only ones who felt the actual price increase were the insurance companies. Am I wrong or there really is some merit to Shkrelis explanations?
Yeah, the cynic in me wonders how much of outrage isn't a media campaign by the insurance companies. As this article points out, the system is broken, yet everyone is pilling on him as if he was the real problem: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/everyone-hates-martin-shkreli-everyone-is-missing-the-point http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/everyone-h...
> "AFAIK the drug was free for everyone without insurance"
That was an adjustment made after the initial outrage over the price hikes.
Also, worth considering the "50% price cut" made for hospitals was after raising the original price by 5000%:
http://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11105404 http://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11105404
Lastly, raising the costs for insurance companies raises insurance premiums for customers, if you think they'd let these price rises eat into their own profits I'd suggest that was a little misguided.
How many people are actually using this medication? And after, what, 70 years, no one else is making the drug or had come up with a new treatment?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/24/martin-shkreli/fact-checking-martin-shkrelis-claim-daraprim-under/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/24/...
"Daraprim is used to treat a parasitic infection known as toxoplasmosis, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers a leading cause of death attributed to food-borne illnesses. The Toxoplasma parasite can be transmitted through contaminated food, water, and kitchen utensils as well as contact with infected cat feces. While 60 million Americans carry the parasite with no symptoms, it can become deadly for those with weakened immune systems."
""Turing has not got a single clinical trial underway. Shkreli’s not testing new drugs of any kind for toxoplasmosis. He's got nothing registered," Attaran said. "No one needs a new drug for toxoplasmosis anyways. It works so well bloody well.""
It's only 2000 users in the US. Which is why no one bothers to make it, except Turing.
It's easy enough to make, but the FDA changes to older drugs' approval creates perfect conditions for such abuse. Zero other companies have stepped up and got approval yet.
Doesn't it take a while to get to clinical trials?
The volume of patients is irrelevant, the FDA could easily open up the market to competition by bringing in suppliers that were approved by other nations with similar medical standards. They could even compare the statistics regarding complications arising from the drug, it's not exactly like there would be a shortage of applicable data. Why they choose not to do so is beyond me, perhaps other drug companies would fight back against such a move, even if it was only limited to generics.
On a side note, regarding those 2000, there's evidence that toxoplasmosis is under treated in the US, particularly with regards to pregnant women.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/10/u-s-not-taking-basic-step-to-prevent-toxoplasmosis-in-newborns-researcher-contends.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/10/u-s-not-takin...
The that only insurance companies felt the price is an audacious lie by Shkreli and his people. Documents that were subpoenaed for the congress hearing revealed that people with insurance got stuck with 30%-50% co-pays. At 75.000 a bottle a 40% co-pay is still a 30.000 out of pocket expense. Regular people have to remortgage their house to come up with this kind of money.
Shkreli basically lied about everything. He lied about his business model. He lied about the availability of the drugs. He lied about his programs that supposedly made the drug available to people who could not otherwise afford it. The guy is a real piece of work.
Watch the hearing on C-SPAN if you don't believe me.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?404183-1/hearing-prescription-drug-market http://www.c-span.org/video/?404183-1/hearing-prescription-d...
http://www.c-span.org/video/?406885-1/sudden-price-spikes-decadesold-rx-drugs-inside-monopoly-business-model http://www.c-span.org/video/?406885-1/sudden-price-spikes-de...
Found the timestamp, starts at 00:41:00 (second hearing) where victims of Martin Shkreli talks about their attempts to mortgage their house in order to pay for the drug for their sick child.
So who's the real crook?
Is it the sleazebag who legally takes advantage of the terrible system that we refer to as the US health insurance system?
Or is it the 435 representatives and 100 senators who are in the pockets of the insurance companies and pharma companies that perpetuate our current system?
At a moral level, yes the guy is as bad as they come (and those youtube videos of him are just plain weird). But I'd argue he's not the cause of our problems, he's a product of the system that we've cornered ourselves into.
Exactly. This guy is such a smug bastard that he makes the perfect lightning rod for the whole country to direct their rage at, deflecting it away from the actual system that allows this to happen.
He's a real crook in a system that's awful. It's not either-or in my book.
So I agree he's not the root cause. He just pushes the existing framework to its "logical" conclusion. But only if "Logical" means being as ruthlessly exploitative as possible. Even the other sleazebag drug CEOs don't go this far, so Shkreli is uniquely contemptible.
But yes, ideally anger should be directed to the pharma industry and health insurance as a whole, not to Shkreli the individual.
Out of all the places, I didn't expect HN to be a place where I'd find another sheep. I suggest you look into the reasons behind Shkreli jumped up the price, rather than grabbing your pitch-fork and jumping on the media bandwagon.
Where's your evidence for these high co-pays that Turing did not subsidize? I searched both transcripts for "co-pay" and "mortgage," and didn't find anything like what you're claiming. In fact, I see the opposite. I see the CEO of Turing being cross-examined by a hostile Massachusetts congressman accusing her of causing $6000 co-pays. She says, no, we paid anyone directly who fell through the cracks in this way. He replies, "after 4 days."
Searching for the word "mortgage" yielded no results for me.
I used to think drug companies were a scourge. After researching the Shkreli controversy last year I'm not so sure. But Shkreli, with his (often funny) dickhead antics, certainly would be a convenient whipping boy -- if anyone, like Congress or special interests -- needed a whipping boy to distract the public from what's actually ailing American health care.
For some perspective, drugs are only 1/10 of American health care costs.
Prescription drugs: 10%
Dental care: 4%
Hospital care: 32%
Physician/clinical services: 20%
Source: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures2014.pdf
And as far as Shkreli goes, the reality, as far as I've seen so far, is that no one is paying these sky-high prices for Daraprim out of pocket. Check out Turing's 10-K's; they reinvest their profits in R+D. Shkreli himself seems to be legitimately interested in developing new and better treatments for rare diseases. (CMD+F: "PKAN" on this page: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-17/retrophins-martin-shkreli-the-biotech-short-seller-who-went-long http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-17/retrophins...)
Serious question. For these super-rare diseases like toxoplasmosis, the current profit model is this. First, charge a high price ($30k-$100k) for a course of treatment. Then, the few people suffering from the rare disease get the drug via insurance. Does anyone have a better way of incentivizing drug companies to create new treatments, or better treatments, for rare diseases?
The evidence is in the hearings, just watch them. The transcript search doesn't work for me (paywalled).
Also see page 4 of this document (which I already linked to):
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/Memo%20on%20Turing%20Documents.pdf http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversig...
And in the congressional hearing there was one family facing a $350,000 price tag for their Daraprim cure which insurance refused to cover altogether because of the price hike, and Turing refused to help. The family did eventually get the medicine they needed, but Turing left them out to dry.
I'm fully aware Turing states "nobody falls through the cracks", but it's a blatant and audacious lie and there are dozens of experts testifying as much. You'll also find expert testimony in the linked videos. Many hospitals stock one or two bottles of Daraprim so they can immediately help walk-in patients. So now when somebody can't get Daraprim through insurance the doctors beg nearby hospitals to fedex the pills they have in stock from before the price hike. This supply is quickly running out.
The sales volume of Daraprim dropped by 80% or so as a result of the price increase, and the Turing executives state that thanks to their actions availability of the drug has broadened. A clear contradiction. Less volume means sick folks simple have to go without, which can have very serious health consequences.
Heck, even the Massachusetts General Hospital stated, and I quote!
This is a critical matter, visible at the highest levels of our
Infectious Disease Department [...] Daraprim’s new price on their
inpatient pharmacy budget, which they have determined to be
prohibitively expensive. Against their clinical convictions
they are currently switching patients to Bactrim.
Observe that patients who are now forced to use the inferior Bactrim do not deal with Turing at all, which means there is no application for Turing to reject. Translated into Turing's bizarro PR language: "nobody falls through the cracks". In the real world we understand that people not getting the medicine they need is a problem.
Watch the hearing videos (especially the Subcommitte on Aging one). Read the actual filings and other primary sources, not the PR spin.
Again, you make two claims here. 1: co-pays for Daraprim are very high. 2. Turing does not reimburse for those high co-pays.
You're right about number 1.
You cite no evidence for number 2. For its part, Turing says they reimburse for the high co-pays. Why wouldn't they? It would be a PR disaster not to reimburse, so it's manifestly in their interest. And they're making such a fat profit they can afford to reimburse people for high co-pays.
Page 4 of the document you cited is just a list of examples of high co-pays. Yes.
Again, where's the evidence that Turing does NOT reimburse for those co-pays? Do you have an example?
The evidence is right there in the PDF as well as in the C-SPAN videos I linked. I'm not going through 8 hours of video I watched several months ago to find the exact timestamp, but since you claimed you researched all this you must have watched the videos with all the damning testimony they contain already. It's pretty clear at this point you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that makes saint Shkreli look bad so there's no point in going back and forth any further.
From the memo I linked earlier:
> The email stated that the first patient “has a $6000.00 co-pay. She is not a Medicare part D but has a federal funded insurance plan so wouldn’t quali[f]y for co-pay assistance or be covered under whatever Medicare Part D plan you are working on right now with Turing.” The email stated that the second patient “has insurance, however her plan does not cover Daraprim. Attempted to transfer to UCB for free drug program but was advised that because she has insurance, she does not qualify. Free drug program is only for patients with no insurance.”
Basically, Turing says "sorry, you don't qualify". Turing denies people's claims repeatedly, because they just don't give a fuck. Not to mention the obvious problem of patients not being able to afford the co-pay, thereby having to go without the pills. I've clearly demonstrated that there are cases where patients cannot get the medicine they need as a direct consequence of the price hike. But hey, feel free to believe Turing is acting honorably because they want to protect their reputation. Believe whatever you want. I'm done here.
https://i.imgur.com/XBsKiFx.png https://i.imgur.com/XBsKiFx.png
I don't have a horse in the race. I just think you're not reading these documents carefully or considering the evidence carefully.
For example, that case you cite above, the $6k copay. OK. Read the memo closely. A Walgreens exec is emailing a Turing exec citing a patient's problem with Turing's bureaucracy.
How was the problem resolved? Did Turing pay? You say that CLEARLY Turing didn't end up paying in this particular case, because you hate Turing, but the document doesn't say. And you have no idea. Neither do I, but I'm not pretending.
Generally: Turing says, for goodwill, they give away 60% of the drug for a dollar.
Do you know of even one case where someone - verifiably - fell through the cracks and Turing refused to EVER pay?
Are you opposed to the idea of pharmaceutical companies selling orphan drugs at high prices ($100k, $300k, or more)? Or are you only opposed to Turing's purchase of Daraprim and raising the price? Would you still oppose them if, in 10 years, it turned out Turing's profits had, e.g., produced a PKAN drug? Do you know a better way than high drug prices to incentivize the creation of drugs for serious rare diseases?