3 ms·

He raised the price of Daraprim in order to fund R&D to find alternative treatments as Daraprim caused some nasty side effects. It was free to any individual w

by AJRF 9y ago

He raised the price of Daraprim in order to fund R&D to find alternative treatments as Daraprim caused some nasty side effects. It was free to any individual who wished to obtain it, with Martin footing the bill. The side effect of the price hike was the insurance companies has to pay more, not individuals. So no, one couldn't argue he hurt a lot of sick people.

lukaslalinsky 9y ago
Isn't this an extreme example of the core problem why the US health system is so expensive? Even you are suggesting that an increased price is fine if it's the insurance companies paying the money.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>The side effect of the price hike was the insurance companies has to pay more, not individuals. I keep seeing this, don't you realize that those increased insurance costs are passed on to the people paying for insurance? >He raised the price of Daraprim in order to fund R&D to find alternative treatments as Daraprim caused some nasty side effects. You shouldn't buy into his PR efforts, take a look at this: Shkreli admitted his company sold the same form of pyrimethamine, or Daraprim, that had been on the market for 70 years — although he expressed hope that his company could develop a more potent form of the drug that did not hinder the body’s production of folic acid. “The mechanism of the drug is folate inhibition,” Anandya reminded the CEO, adding that what Shkreli had proposed might not even be scientifically possible. “The entire mechanism of the drug is to stop the production of folic acid in the first place and the bulk of its side effects are tied up with that,” Anandya said. “It’s kind of counter-intuitive to say that you are going to solve this problem when it’s not a problem as much as the whole raison d’etre of the drug. This I find is the main problem with your plan. That the solution is not worth $749.” “One cannot suggest such a (monstrous) increase in the price of a drug which by your own admission does nothing better while telling me your plan is to (because this is the only way it would work) create an entirely new drug not related to pyrimethamine at all because it would require a new structure,” the physician continued. “Which in turn would give you a big hassle since you would require testing and FDA approval from scratch anyway. I think your plan is flawed.” from: http://www.alternet.org/economy/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-gets-schooled-real-doctor-during-disastrous-reddit-interview http://www.alternet.org/economy/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-ge...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gizmo 9y ago
1. There is no evidence of any R&D efforts. He did "market research", i.e. finding new drugs to acquire and hike the price on. 2. It was absolutely 100% not free to any individual who wished to obtain it. If you had no insurance you might (or might not) get it for free, but if you had lousy insurance you could get stuck with a 20% copay, which means you have to pay $18,000 out of pocket -per month-. Also, hospitals stopped having Daraprim in stock because of the price hike which means people with acute cases are no longer able to start treatment immediately. 3. If you can't argue he hurt a lot of sick people, why are doctors and other healthcare professionals arguing exactly that? I think you've been drinking the Shkreli cool-aid.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  I think you should start a pharmaceutical company to help these sick people.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    What's interesting is that people are outraged at medicine prices but nobody wants to start a company to develop new molecules and sell them at the cheap. This shows that people realize that prices much lower than current are not sustainable. There is just a lot of R&D involved. But that realization does not prevent people from bitching about it or ascribing blame to people who are just doing what is viable for their business.
hellofunk 9y ago
> It was free to any individual who wished to obtain it, with Martin footing the bill. [0] "... it says that the drug is available for free to people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has watched her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to get it. Patients have to prove both financial need and health status, something that's difficult to focus on when their lives are in danger. In June, one of her patients gave up on the process. The patient switched therapies, only to suffer a negative side effect." [0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-d...
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  So in order to save ~100% on a $100,000 treatment, they have to "jump though the hoops" and prove they need it (otherwise everyone would just do that?). OK?
  - hellofunk 9y ago
    There's nothing like laying down a thick bureaucratic obstacle of red-tape on thousands of very sick people during the key moments of their treatment.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    It wasn't always a $100,000 treatment. Shkreli made it a $100,000 treatment with the justification being that the poor could still obtain it for free. But then he puts a bunch of beauracratic roadblocks in the way and it's their fault they don't jump through his hoops? For a pill that costs $1 outside the US and which he made $750? Come on man.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      I'd imagine the roadblocks are there to prevent people abusing the system. And the rest of the roadblocks are by the FDA and perhaps CBP, right? Otherwise people could just import the $1 pills and be fine. If it turns out Turing was acting malicious and intentionally tried to block people from getting the medication despite knowing they were eligible, that's a different story. But I'm hardly going to take the word of biased medical professionals on it. Martin put a face to all this, pointed out a huge flaw in this system and made money doing it. Then to top it off, he dares to laugh at everyone in the system about it (like in [1]). If Martin had just hid behind normal pharma PR, few people would be outraged, it'd just be general grousing with little airtime. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EXsVfiFbp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EXsVfiFbp8

by AJRF 9y ago

lukaslalinsky 9y ago

Isn't this an extreme example of the core problem why the US health system is so expensive? Even you are suggesting that an increased price is fine if it's the insurance companies paying the money.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>The side effect of the price hike was the insurance companies has to pay more, not individuals. I keep seeing this, don't you realize that those increased insurance costs are passed on to the people paying for insurance? >He raised the price of Daraprim in order to fund R&D to find alternative treatments as Daraprim caused some nasty side effects. You shouldn't buy into his PR efforts, take a look at this: Shkreli admitted his company sold the same form of pyrimethamine, or Daraprim, that had been on the market for 70 years — although he expressed hope that his company could develop a more potent form of the drug that did not hinder the body’s production of folic acid. “The mechanism of the drug is folate inhibition,” Anandya reminded the CEO, adding that what Shkreli had proposed might not even be scientifically possible. “The entire mechanism of the drug is to stop the production of folic acid in the first place and the bulk of its side effects are tied up with that,” Anandya said. “It’s kind of counter-intuitive to say that you are going to solve this problem when it’s not a problem as much as the whole raison d’etre of the drug. This I find is the main problem with your plan. That the solution is not worth $749.” “One cannot suggest such a (monstrous) increase in the price of a drug which by your own admission does nothing better while telling me your plan is to (because this is the only way it would work) create an entirely new drug not related to pyrimethamine at all because it would require a new structure,” the physician continued. “Which in turn would give you a big hassle since you would require testing and FDA approval from scratch anyway. I think your plan is flawed.” from: http://www.alternet.org/economy/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-gets-schooled-real-doctor-during-disastrous-reddit-interview http://www.alternet.org/economy/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-ge...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gizmo 9y ago

1. There is no evidence of any R&D efforts. He did "market research", i.e. finding new drugs to acquire and hike the price on. 2. It was absolutely 100% not free to any individual who wished to obtain it. If you had no insurance you might (or might not) get it for free, but if you had lousy insurance you could get stuck with a 20% copay, which means you have to pay $18,000 out of pocket -per month-. Also, hospitals stopped having Daraprim in stock because of the price hike which means people with acute cases are no longer able to start treatment immediately. 3. If you can't argue he hurt a lot of sick people, why are doctors and other healthcare professionals arguing exactly that? I think you've been drinking the Shkreli cool-aid.

sintaxi 9y ago
I think you should start a pharmaceutical company to help these sick people.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  What's interesting is that people are outraged at medicine prices but nobody wants to start a company to develop new molecules and sell them at the cheap. This shows that people realize that prices much lower than current are not sustainable. There is just a lot of R&D involved. But that realization does not prevent people from bitching about it or ascribing blame to people who are just doing what is viable for their business.

hellofunk 9y ago

> It was free to any individual who wished to obtain it, with Martin footing the bill. [0] "... it says that the drug is available for free to people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has watched her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to get it. Patients have to prove both financial need and health status, something that's difficult to focus on when their lives are in danger. In June, one of her patients gave up on the process. The patient switched therapies, only to suffer a negative side effect." [0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-d...

MichaelGG 9y ago
So in order to save ~100% on a $100,000 treatment, they have to "jump though the hoops" and prove they need it (otherwise everyone would just do that?). OK?
- hellofunk 9y ago
  There's nothing like laying down a thick bureaucratic obstacle of red-tape on thousands of very sick people during the key moments of their treatment.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  It wasn't always a $100,000 treatment. Shkreli made it a $100,000 treatment with the justification being that the poor could still obtain it for free. But then he puts a bunch of beauracratic roadblocks in the way and it's their fault they don't jump through his hoops? For a pill that costs $1 outside the US and which he made $750? Come on man.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    I'd imagine the roadblocks are there to prevent people abusing the system. And the rest of the roadblocks are by the FDA and perhaps CBP, right? Otherwise people could just import the $1 pills and be fine. If it turns out Turing was acting malicious and intentionally tried to block people from getting the medication despite knowing they were eligible, that's a different story. But I'm hardly going to take the word of biased medical professionals on it. Martin put a face to all this, pointed out a huge flaw in this system and made money doing it. Then to top it off, he dares to laugh at everyone in the system about it (like in [1]). If Martin had just hid behind normal pharma PR, few people would be outraged, it'd just be general grousing with little airtime. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EXsVfiFbp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EXsVfiFbp8