6 ms·

Drug Prices Too High? Sometimes, They’re Not Costly Enough

20 points by tysone 10y ago

slantaclaus 10y ago
As a type 1 diabetic in the US forced into paying $400+/month in copay to a premium PPO plan in the US for insulin that costs $1200+/month without insurance, on insulin that costs a mere $180 month WITHOUT INSURANCE in Canada, I say: SHILL
- Scoundreller 10y ago
  So you are buying your insulin in Canada, right? (I don't mean mail order, but a border run). Insulin doesn't require a prescription here.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    Insulin doesn't require a prescription in most US states either.
  - slantaclaus 10y ago
    Not yet.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  Have you considered an HMO instead of PPO? My brother is a type 1 and his copay with Kaiser is less than $25 per month. Obviously the HMO plan is more expensive, but not $400 per month more expensive and the $0 copay for appointments and immunizations is nice.
- diabetesthrowaw 10y ago
  That's just another horrible and perfect example how U.S. citizens suffer thanks to their government officials being non-americans and rigging the system for profit and using people as cattle. Here, all my insulin, check-ups etc. were covered by the welfare state until they changed it a few months back to cut expenses. Now I have to spend ~80€ a month from my unemployment check to keep myself alive and it makes me beyond depressed, I couldn't even begin to comprehend how horrible it must be for you.
sgift 10y ago
Or one could accept that for essential things it is a very bad idea to hope that the market will provide and instead the state could provide them itself, which could guarantee a steady supply.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  How does shifting the burden from a profit-motivated company to a hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy guarantee anything?
  - sgift 10y ago
    > hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being and a government which is at least partially motivated by that (unfornately only partially due to issues[1]) I know what to choose. [1] Mainly lobbyism and greed. Where people are there is greed, where there's greed there's potential for misbehaviour.
    - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
      > If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being False premise. The dead can't buy their products, and the so much as merely pissed off will be motivated to take their business to the competition. Both of these hurt profit. > and a government which is at least partially motivated by that What do you base this on? The warm fuzzy feelings by bureaucrats? Employees are people too, with their own fuzzy warm feelings. What makes government employees special?
      - azernik 10y ago
        The fact that their job security is dependent on who we elect to public office.
    - danjayh 10y ago
      Politicians are motivated by power, not by your needs. We have had repeated examples of just how bad states truly are at providing for people's basic needs. Every time it's been tried, it's resulted in chronic shortages, often to the point of starvation. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China (before they went capitalist). I'm going to take a wager and say that the days when the USSR was still a major world power were before your time, and if I'm right, I strongly encourage you to do some reading on what it was like for the people who lived in it.
Scoundreller 10y ago
tl;dr: Generic drug makers, with low profit margins, don't have a lot of excess capacity. Any disruption to supply can have a lasting effect, especially for complicated products like injectables. Part of the fault is regulatory: Once that product is labelled for sale in country X, you can't sell excess inventory in country Y, even though it's the same product from the same production line.
ars 10y ago
Sounds like what's needed is a drug reserve, to act as a buffer if there is a disruption. The artificially short expiration dates for drugs makes this hard. Drugs last a LOT longer than they say, but no one wants to spend the money to see how much longer.
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  This is actually a huge deal. Insulin is famous for lasting several times the listed shelf life if properly refrigerated, but people unaware of this still throw away unfinished vials. Other drugs are so stable they may never expire, so the dates on the bottles are completely arbitrary.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    Yup, but running stability studies is also costly too, not so much for the testing, but for regulatory approvals - you need to write up the stability part again, argue why the results are still acceptable in case you see any increase of degradation products, and pay a fee and wait 6 months to 1 year to get it approved, then enjoy paying again to relabel all your package, PIL, etc... that goes with it. Most of the time, unless you had a realllllly short shelf life at submission timing, the additional work is not worth it for the pharma industry side. Resources are better used working towards new/pending products.
- frederikvs 10y ago
  Even if it didn't cost a dime, some drug companies might not be interested in longer expiration dates. If the expiration date is passed, and you throw it out, you'll have to buy a new supply. More profit! It's a perverse effect, but that's the way it is.
legulere 10y ago
Not a problem of too low prices, but a failure of the market. Which means you need the state to intervene. And that's exactly what they did with the 2012 FDA laws mentioned at the end of the article.
- an_account 10y ago
  It's worth noting that the failures in the market were often due to high (state imposed) regulatory burdens, and that the 2012 FDA laws helped to loosen those burdens.
known 10y ago
http://www.genericpedia.com http://www.genericpedia.com has price list of generic medicines

20 points by tysone 10y ago

As a type 1 diabetic in the US forced into paying $400+/month in copay to a premium PPO plan in the US for insulin that costs $1200+/month without insurance, on insulin that costs a mere $180 month WITHOUT INSURANCE in Canada, I say: SHILL

Scoundreller 10y ago
So you are buying your insulin in Canada, right? (I don't mean mail order, but a border run). Insulin doesn't require a prescription here.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Insulin doesn't require a prescription in most US states either.
- slantaclaus 10y ago
  Not yet.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thescriptkiddie 10y ago
Have you considered an HMO instead of PPO? My brother is a type 1 and his copay with Kaiser is less than $25 per month. Obviously the HMO plan is more expensive, but not $400 per month more expensive and the $0 copay for appointments and immunizations is nice.
diabetesthrowaw 10y ago
That's just another horrible and perfect example how U.S. citizens suffer thanks to their government officials being non-americans and rigging the system for profit and using people as cattle. Here, all my insulin, check-ups etc. were covered by the welfare state until they changed it a few months back to cut expenses. Now I have to spend ~80€ a month from my unemployment check to keep myself alive and it makes me beyond depressed, I couldn't even begin to comprehend how horrible it must be for you.

sgift 10y ago

Or one could accept that for essential things it is a very bad idea to hope that the market will provide and instead the state could provide them itself, which could guarantee a steady supply.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
How does shifting the burden from a profit-motivated company to a hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy guarantee anything?
- sgift 10y ago
  > hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being and a government which is at least partially motivated by that (unfornately only partially due to issues[1]) I know what to choose. [1] Mainly lobbyism and greed. Where people are there is greed, where there's greed there's potential for misbehaviour.
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    > If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being False premise. The dead can't buy their products, and the so much as merely pissed off will be motivated to take their business to the competition. Both of these hurt profit. > and a government which is at least partially motivated by that What do you base this on? The warm fuzzy feelings by bureaucrats? Employees are people too, with their own fuzzy warm feelings. What makes government employees special?
    - azernik 10y ago
      The fact that their job security is dependent on who we elect to public office.
  - danjayh 10y ago
    Politicians are motivated by power, not by your needs. We have had repeated examples of just how bad states truly are at providing for people's basic needs. Every time it's been tried, it's resulted in chronic shortages, often to the point of starvation. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China (before they went capitalist). I'm going to take a wager and say that the days when the USSR was still a major world power were before your time, and if I'm right, I strongly encourage you to do some reading on what it was like for the people who lived in it.

Scoundreller 10y ago

tl;dr: Generic drug makers, with low profit margins, don't have a lot of excess capacity. Any disruption to supply can have a lasting effect, especially for complicated products like injectables. Part of the fault is regulatory: Once that product is labelled for sale in country X, you can't sell excess inventory in country Y, even though it's the same product from the same production line.

ars 10y ago

Sounds like what's needed is a drug reserve, to act as a buffer if there is a disruption. The artificially short expiration dates for drugs makes this hard. Drugs last a LOT longer than they say, but no one wants to spend the money to see how much longer.

thescriptkiddie 10y ago
This is actually a huge deal. Insulin is famous for lasting several times the listed shelf life if properly refrigerated, but people unaware of this still throw away unfinished vials. Other drugs are so stable they may never expire, so the dates on the bottles are completely arbitrary.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Yup, but running stability studies is also costly too, not so much for the testing, but for regulatory approvals - you need to write up the stability part again, argue why the results are still acceptable in case you see any increase of degradation products, and pay a fee and wait 6 months to 1 year to get it approved, then enjoy paying again to relabel all your package, PIL, etc... that goes with it. Most of the time, unless you had a realllllly short shelf life at submission timing, the additional work is not worth it for the pharma industry side. Resources are better used working towards new/pending products.
frederikvs 10y ago
Even if it didn't cost a dime, some drug companies might not be interested in longer expiration dates. If the expiration date is passed, and you throw it out, you'll have to buy a new supply. More profit! It's a perverse effect, but that's the way it is.

legulere 10y ago

Not a problem of too low prices, but a failure of the market. Which means you need the state to intervene. And that's exactly what they did with the 2012 FDA laws mentioned at the end of the article.

an_account 10y ago
It's worth noting that the failures in the market were often due to high (state imposed) regulatory burdens, and that the 2012 FDA laws helped to loosen those burdens.

known 10y ago

http://www.genericpedia.com http://www.genericpedia.com has price list of generic medicines