4 ms·

Naltrexone - the active ingredient in this $1000 reformulation of a generic drug - can also be injected as pellets under the skin for the same time-release eff

Naltrexone - the active ingredient in this $1000 reformulation of a generic drug - can also be injected as pellets under the skin for the same time-release effect. It's been a while since I ran across this option. Here's a random site about this therapy: http://www.naltrexpellet.com/ http://www.naltrexpellet.com/ The active ingredient costs <$2, so Vivitrol is 90% price gouging. Edit: IMHO, Naltrexone is a good prescription drug that actually helps people physiologically. People's pain receptors get overloaded; naltrexone helps to reset them. Naltrexone helps with alcoholism, and apparently with meth amphetamine [1] too. [1] http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-identify-a-potentially-effective-treatment-for-methamphetamine-addiction http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-identify-... With that said, Naltrexone doesn't address the fundamental emotional problems that underlie most cases of addiction. So it doesn't do them a whole lot of good to force them to take it, without also helping them find stability, the lack of which probably led them to self-medicate in the first place.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
refurb 9y ago
Vivitrol is 90% price gouging So you're saying that the only cost associated with bringing a new drug to market is the cost of the ingredients?
- 55555 9y ago
  No, he didn't say that at all. He strongly implied that the other costs involved don't add up to 90% of the list price. Ofcourse bribing judges costs money too.
  - aisofteng 9y ago
    What evidence is there of judges being bribed here? That's a hell of an accusation.
- ploxiln 9y ago
  He left another 9.8% for the other costs
- saas_sam 9y ago
  It's shocking how confident people are in their understanding of economics when they clearly have never read a book on the subject or taken a 101 course on it. People have some kind of instinct for how much money is "too much" in different contexts and they fully believe they are right without any external frame of reference. Ask them what the "correct" margin should be based on and they'll say something like "the cost plus a little bit more to cover overhead." No understanding of supply/demand whatsoever.
  - mhuffman 9y ago
    I assume that your studies in economics identified what you are referring to as "cost-plus" pricing...which is not how any drug is priced. At the point of sales, R&D is a sunk cost and is not part of the pricing strategy, in most big modern companies. Companies price their product to maximize profit. That is not always the highest price they could charge, but is a function of total profits.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > Ask them what the "correct" margin should be based on and they'll say something like "the cost plus a little bit more to cover overhead." No understanding of supply/demand whatsoever. Are you saying that's not the correct price in a competitive market? After accounting for all costs, of course. Maybe you should read those people as saying "this market is lacking in competition to make prices reasonable".
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      My primate sense of fairness says that charging 100% of costs is actually a form of charity, 105% of costs is hyper-competitive, 110% of costs is quite respectable and meritorious, whereas 150% of costs is getting to be overly ambitious. 10000% of costs is, quite simply, asking for someone to put a shiv in your kidney. The only way to achieve such margins is by literally suppressing all competition with armed force, with an unquenchable, non-substitutable demand. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the feds provide that force.
      - 9y ago
- mhuffman 9y ago
  >> cost associated with bringing a new drug to market If you are referring to R&D, that is typically a sunk cost for existing drug companies and is typically not figured into the price.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  The active ingredient's $2 market price includes the markups for R&D, failed previous projects, etc that are inherent in drug development. Repackaging an existing generic hardly merits the same.
  - c3534l 9y ago
    > The active ingredient's $2 market price includes the markups for R&D Not if it's generic, it doesn't. The cost of R&D has to be paid off during the patent period. Also, to call it "repackaged" is disingenuous. The delivery method is what's being charged for.
    - aisofteng 9y ago
      It's not disingenuous, it's just (probably) incorrect. Why does "disingenuous" get used so much around here? It's almost never used correctly.
      - c3534l 9y ago
        I felt like he was reframing things to the point where it was no longer true. I think he knows that the new version is an extended release injection (I mean, it was mentioned explicitly in the article), but he said "repackaged" for rhetorical reasons.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  That's clearly not what they said, since 10% of the current price is still fifty times the ingredient cost.
wcummings 9y ago
>With that said, Naltrexone doesn't address the fundamental emotional problems that underlie most cases of addiction. So it doesn't do them a whole lot of good to force them to take it, without also helping them find stability, the lack of which probably led them to self-medicate in the first place. Could just as easily be exposure and genetic predisposition, there's plenty of "stable" addicts.
Scoundreller 9y ago
Then sterilizing the ingredient (which isn't always easy), and formulating a product that is very slow release. Not exactly easy. I give credit to the company for coming up with a useful slow release formulation of a product where nobody else did. Not just a re-hash/evergreening of an existing product for the sake of patent extension (oral Flomax CR, what was the point???) My bigger concern is with naltrexone itself: If individuals on this need any dental/medical procedure, or have an accident, anaesthesia is very atypical. On-scene EMS won't be able to provide pain management beyond an ibuprofen. Something like non-opioids that aren't typically used (ketamine, nitrous oxide, other volatile anaesthetics) or sufficiently high doses of short-acting opioids (fentanyl derivative) to overcome the naltrexone blockade (which would need active anaesthesiologist .management)
- rocqua 9y ago
  I'd say that on-scene pain management is a luxury compared to fixing an opioid addiction. (Maybe the desensitization makes pain management harder anyway). A drug addict seems more likely to suffer from his addiction than to suffer from an accident. I am basing this on the assumption that naltrexone will only delay pain treatment by a day at most. If it has people in agonizing pain until it wears off things are different.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

refurb 9y ago

Vivitrol is 90% price gouging So you're saying that the only cost associated with bringing a new drug to market is the cost of the ingredients?

55555 9y ago
No, he didn't say that at all. He strongly implied that the other costs involved don't add up to 90% of the list price. Ofcourse bribing judges costs money too.
- aisofteng 9y ago
  What evidence is there of judges being bribed here? That's a hell of an accusation.
ploxiln 9y ago
He left another 9.8% for the other costs
saas_sam 9y ago
It's shocking how confident people are in their understanding of economics when they clearly have never read a book on the subject or taken a 101 course on it. People have some kind of instinct for how much money is "too much" in different contexts and they fully believe they are right without any external frame of reference. Ask them what the "correct" margin should be based on and they'll say something like "the cost plus a little bit more to cover overhead." No understanding of supply/demand whatsoever.
- mhuffman 9y ago
  I assume that your studies in economics identified what you are referring to as "cost-plus" pricing...which is not how any drug is priced. At the point of sales, R&D is a sunk cost and is not part of the pricing strategy, in most big modern companies. Companies price their product to maximize profit. That is not always the highest price they could charge, but is a function of total profits.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > Ask them what the "correct" margin should be based on and they'll say something like "the cost plus a little bit more to cover overhead." No understanding of supply/demand whatsoever. Are you saying that's not the correct price in a competitive market? After accounting for all costs, of course. Maybe you should read those people as saying "this market is lacking in competition to make prices reasonable".
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    My primate sense of fairness says that charging 100% of costs is actually a form of charity, 105% of costs is hyper-competitive, 110% of costs is quite respectable and meritorious, whereas 150% of costs is getting to be overly ambitious. 10000% of costs is, quite simply, asking for someone to put a shiv in your kidney. The only way to achieve such margins is by literally suppressing all competition with armed force, with an unquenchable, non-substitutable demand. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the feds provide that force.
    - 9y ago
mhuffman 9y ago
>> cost associated with bringing a new drug to market If you are referring to R&D, that is typically a sunk cost for existing drug companies and is typically not figured into the price.
leggomylibro 9y ago
The active ingredient's $2 market price includes the markups for R&D, failed previous projects, etc that are inherent in drug development. Repackaging an existing generic hardly merits the same.
- c3534l 9y ago
  > The active ingredient's $2 market price includes the markups for R&D Not if it's generic, it doesn't. The cost of R&D has to be paid off during the patent period. Also, to call it "repackaged" is disingenuous. The delivery method is what's being charged for.
  - aisofteng 9y ago
    It's not disingenuous, it's just (probably) incorrect. Why does "disingenuous" get used so much around here? It's almost never used correctly.
    - c3534l 9y ago
      I felt like he was reframing things to the point where it was no longer true. I think he knows that the new version is an extended release injection (I mean, it was mentioned explicitly in the article), but he said "repackaged" for rhetorical reasons.
Dylan16807 9y ago
That's clearly not what they said, since 10% of the current price is still fifty times the ingredient cost.

wcummings 9y ago

>With that said, Naltrexone doesn't address the fundamental emotional problems that underlie most cases of addiction. So it doesn't do them a whole lot of good to force them to take it, without also helping them find stability, the lack of which probably led them to self-medicate in the first place. Could just as easily be exposure and genetic predisposition, there's plenty of "stable" addicts.

Scoundreller 9y ago

Then sterilizing the ingredient (which isn't always easy), and formulating a product that is very slow release. Not exactly easy. I give credit to the company for coming up with a useful slow release formulation of a product where nobody else did. Not just a re-hash/evergreening of an existing product for the sake of patent extension (oral Flomax CR, what was the point???) My bigger concern is with naltrexone itself: If individuals on this need any dental/medical procedure, or have an accident, anaesthesia is very atypical. On-scene EMS won't be able to provide pain management beyond an ibuprofen. Something like non-opioids that aren't typically used (ketamine, nitrous oxide, other volatile anaesthetics) or sufficiently high doses of short-acting opioids (fentanyl derivative) to overcome the naltrexone blockade (which would need active anaesthesiologist .management)

rocqua 9y ago
I'd say that on-scene pain management is a luxury compared to fixing an opioid addiction. (Maybe the desensitization makes pain management harder anyway). A drug addict seems more likely to suffer from his addiction than to suffer from an accident. I am basing this on the assumption that naltrexone will only delay pain treatment by a day at most. If it has people in agonizing pain until it wears off things are different.