4 ms·
You are reading this wrong. Sanofi, the company that filed the lawsuit, had pricing in line with EpiPen: "In 2013, Sanofi began selling Auvi-Q, which works to
by totalrobe 9y ago
You are reading this wrong. Sanofi, the company that filed the lawsuit, had pricing in line with EpiPen:
"In 2013, Sanofi began selling Auvi-Q, which works to quell life-threatening allergic reactions, just as EpiPen does. Sanofi priced Auvi-Q on equal footing with EpiPen. And, initially, Sanofi claims it showed promise of gaining market share and providing real competition to EpiPen, which at the time had more than 99 percent of the market, according to Mylan. But that all changed when Mylan began using dirty tactics, Sanofi alleges."
Looks like Sanofi sold the product to another company - the $4500 number is a price from the company Kaléo.
"In 2015, Sanofi pulled Auvi-Q following quality control issues. The device has since been put back on the market by another pharmaceutical company, Kaléo. The list price of the newly released Auvi-Q is set at $4,500."
- yaakov34 9y agoSorry, still not seeing the good-and-evil story here. Look at the graph here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/10/26/epipen-competitor-auvi-q-to-return-to-market-promising-lower-costs-for-patients/#1ac4ed3d76df https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/10/26/epipen... (possibly what you meant by prices in line with EpiPen) - Sanofi was matching the price increases of EpiPen dollar for dollar for years, and was always a little bit more expensive. Then it went away from the market for some kind of quality control problem, and returned as a $4500 device manufactured by another company (but with a weird pricing scheme which supposedly lets anyone who needs it to buy it for low out-of-pocket costs). Honestly that graph looks like both companies conspiring to corner the market together, if anything; but who knows with the insane prices and regulations of healthcare.
- totalrobe 9y agoI am not saying either one is good or evil here, just commenting that the $4500 device is not super relevant to the actual Sanofi lawsuit. Obviously Sanofi should have been able to massively undercut the Mylan price if there truly was xxx% profit margin built in, so it is not really apparent why they didn't do that.
- yaakov34 9y agoWell, it's like Bernie Madoff said - "there is no innocent explanation". They hiked the price from $130 to $500 while matching Mylan every step of the way; they fixed prices. Their lawyers may be good enough so that they never get charged with it, but it's clear that they did it, and they and Mylan are both exactly the same and just as guilty. And now this lawsuit seeks to cast them as some kind of underdog and victim. My point about "good guys" was because of the whole tone of the article. A romantic story of two brothers, one of whom became a doctor, and another an engineer, so that they could invent their dream automatic injector. Except that autoinjectors are a 1950s technology, used by most militaries to deliver antidotes to chemical weapons - here's a film from 1963 which demonstrates a device that I have a hard time telling from an EpiPen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeyW8aoP8mE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeyW8aoP8mE. So what the hell was there to even invent, why are these devices covered by any patents at all, why is the FDA allowing just two companies to dominate the market (I am sure plenty of people would like to charge $100 for devices which cost a few dollars to manufacture), and why doesn't a lockstep price hike from $130 to $500 attract the attention of antitrust prosecutors? Because healthcare in the USA is an insane fever swamp...