3 ms·

Investors seeking profits? The horror! Profits are what caused investors to create these companies in the first place, so without that we wouldn't have EpiPens

Investors seeking profits? The horror! Profits are what caused investors to create these companies in the first place, so without that we wouldn't have EpiPens. In this particular case, there is an anti-trust argument to be made (after the generic got pulled), but drug development is a side-effect of investors seeking maximum returns. If anyone here thinks there is a better system for drug development, I think we'd all love to hear it.

20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
It's worth noting that the "generic" got pulled, but there have subsequently been several attempts to bring competitive products to the market to compete with api-pens. It's not like they have a natural monopoly. The thing that is keeping competition out of the market is the FDA. This is a product that is not exactly at the cutting edge of science so either all the competition is really incompetent (I find that doubtful) or the FDA is basically creating an artificial monopoly by keeping competition out. In my opinion, most cases where you see one company able to charge outsized prices for their products, if you scratch the surface you'll find a government created monopoly, or near monopoly (wireless spectrum is an example of this) or regulation created situation that protects one company from competition. At the very least you will not find a free market. Because in a free market, people will compete if anyone gives them even a small pricing umbrella. Even for things that require very highly refined manufacturing techniques, like drugs and electronics. Look at the cellphone market, nothing is more precisely built than a smart phone yet we have huge numbers of them in a wide variety at low cost, because the market is mostly unregulated.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You're missing the third option: the product isn't rocket science, and the FDA isn't creating an artificial monopoly, but nobody else wants to be in the business of making a product that could kill children if it's not perfect.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    True, but the Mylan ones come in a two-pack because so often people screw up administering it or require a larger (or backup) dosage. So the bar seems to be fairly low.
asdfologist 10y ago
Exactly. If you decimate pharma companies' profits, you kill their incentive to innovate. You can't have it both ways.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Let the NIH and DARPA innovate and be done with the sham for-profit pharma is.
  - asdfologist 10y ago
    The NIH and DARPA are more than welcome to compete with the pharmas and offer lower prices. This is exactly how capitalism works.
- themartorana 10y ago
  $9.4B revenue, $18.9M in CEO salary, $830M in operating income last year. So tired of the threat of killing the incentive to innovate.

20yrs_no_equity 10y ago

It's worth noting that the "generic" got pulled, but there have subsequently been several attempts to bring competitive products to the market to compete with api-pens. It's not like they have a natural monopoly. The thing that is keeping competition out of the market is the FDA. This is a product that is not exactly at the cutting edge of science so either all the competition is really incompetent (I find that doubtful) or the FDA is basically creating an artificial monopoly by keeping competition out. In my opinion, most cases where you see one company able to charge outsized prices for their products, if you scratch the surface you'll find a government created monopoly, or near monopoly (wireless spectrum is an example of this) or regulation created situation that protects one company from competition. At the very least you will not find a free market. Because in a free market, people will compete if anyone gives them even a small pricing umbrella. Even for things that require very highly refined manufacturing techniques, like drugs and electronics. Look at the cellphone market, nothing is more precisely built than a smart phone yet we have huge numbers of them in a wide variety at low cost, because the market is mostly unregulated.

rayiner 10y ago
You're missing the third option: the product isn't rocket science, and the FDA isn't creating an artificial monopoly, but nobody else wants to be in the business of making a product that could kill children if it's not perfect.
- grandalf 10y ago
  True, but the Mylan ones come in a two-pack because so often people screw up administering it or require a larger (or backup) dosage. So the bar seems to be fairly low.

asdfologist 10y ago

Exactly. If you decimate pharma companies' profits, you kill their incentive to innovate. You can't have it both ways.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Let the NIH and DARPA innovate and be done with the sham for-profit pharma is.
- asdfologist 10y ago
  The NIH and DARPA are more than welcome to compete with the pharmas and offer lower prices. This is exactly how capitalism works.
themartorana 10y ago
$9.4B revenue, $18.9M in CEO salary, $830M in operating income last year. So tired of the threat of killing the incentive to innovate.