3 ms·

Regarding the original price hike which motivated this project, I saw an interesting perspective on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU http

Regarding the original price hike which motivated this project, I saw an interesting perspective on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU Now granted Shkreli is a controversial figure, but basically drug companies are businesses, and if you sort of detach yourself and look from a business perspective and value-based pricing, Epipen competes with the ER, and $600 is a bargain vs an ER visit. And of course his ultimate conclusion is that maybe life saving drugs are more like water and power than cell phones and wine? Maybe the government should get involved in making generic drugs available.

monksy 10y ago
Mr. Shkreli is the guy responsible for the increase of cost in the antimarial drug. Mrs. Bresch justified the increase of cost on the Epipen. (Just making a note so that there is no confusion over who is responsible)
dugite-code 10y ago
My understanding is you're still supposed to attend an ER after administration if an epi pen because it's a "so you don't die immediately" stop gap. At least according to my last first aid course in Australia. At best you skip needing an ambulance
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Correct. Epi is a short-acting drug. Allergens can still cause anaphylaxis after the epi has broken down. Epi use should result in a call to emergency services, and/or a trip to the ED.
csydas 10y ago
I feel like it's a bit of a poor comparison on the basis that an ER visit's primary purpose isn't the same as an Epipen's primary purpose. Ultimately, they can achieve the same goals, but we're not doing a direct comparison of costs. Using all of the other costs and aspects of an ER visit to justify a price increase of Epipens feels dishonest; I do realize that ERs are largely being misused in the US as general health care, but the E is supposed to be for emergency, and the cost comes from the support required to adequately respond to emergency situations. Given that I was under the impression that if you have a situation where you need an epipen you're supposed to seek medical care anyways [1], I'm not sure how this reasoning of "it lowers costs" really plays out, since it seems to me like it's just hiking up the price of an already bad situation. I don't see this as particularly beneficial to anyone other than the sellers of epipens. [1] I must note, my only reference to this is my own fractured knowledge from when I had a friend that required an epipen and reading the instructions for administration. This was a long time ago though and I don't particularly trust my own memory.
r00fus 10y ago
> if you sort of detach yourself and look from a business perspective and value-based pricing, Epipen competes with the ER, and $600 is a bargain vs an ER visit. This is exploitation of inelastic demand (death is a pretty high priced alternative to $600), and it's pretty clear that's exactly what government regulations and market controls are supposed to protect against.
- chillacy 10y ago
  Yes, that is the conclusion that he reached: that the government should just nationalize generics for public benefit. That's sort of the extreme version of mandated pricing. Someone else in the comment section shared another perspective which reaches the opposite conclusion: that these regulations have created the problems in the first place, and the government should not touch this sector at all: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-dr...

monksy 10y ago

Mr. Shkreli is the guy responsible for the increase of cost in the antimarial drug. Mrs. Bresch justified the increase of cost on the Epipen. (Just making a note so that there is no confusion over who is responsible)

dugite-code 10y ago

My understanding is you're still supposed to attend an ER after administration if an epi pen because it's a "so you don't die immediately" stop gap. At least according to my last first aid course in Australia. At best you skip needing an ambulance

FireBeyond 10y ago
Correct. Epi is a short-acting drug. Allergens can still cause anaphylaxis after the epi has broken down. Epi use should result in a call to emergency services, and/or a trip to the ED.

csydas 10y ago

I feel like it's a bit of a poor comparison on the basis that an ER visit's primary purpose isn't the same as an Epipen's primary purpose. Ultimately, they can achieve the same goals, but we're not doing a direct comparison of costs. Using all of the other costs and aspects of an ER visit to justify a price increase of Epipens feels dishonest; I do realize that ERs are largely being misused in the US as general health care, but the E is supposed to be for emergency, and the cost comes from the support required to adequately respond to emergency situations. Given that I was under the impression that if you have a situation where you need an epipen you're supposed to seek medical care anyways [1], I'm not sure how this reasoning of "it lowers costs" really plays out, since it seems to me like it's just hiking up the price of an already bad situation. I don't see this as particularly beneficial to anyone other than the sellers of epipens. [1] I must note, my only reference to this is my own fractured knowledge from when I had a friend that required an epipen and reading the instructions for administration. This was a long time ago though and I don't particularly trust my own memory.

r00fus 10y ago

> if you sort of detach yourself and look from a business perspective and value-based pricing, Epipen competes with the ER, and $600 is a bargain vs an ER visit. This is exploitation of inelastic demand (death is a pretty high priced alternative to $600), and it's pretty clear that's exactly what government regulations and market controls are supposed to protect against.

chillacy 10y ago
Yes, that is the conclusion that he reached: that the government should just nationalize generics for public benefit. That's sort of the extreme version of mandated pricing. Someone else in the comment section shared another perspective which reaches the opposite conclusion: that these regulations have created the problems in the first place, and the government should not touch this sector at all: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-dr...