3 ms·

When Shkreli got vilified, he missed out on one of the biggest opportunities to push for meaningful change. Media and Congress were "not kind" to his price incr

When Shkreli got vilified, he missed out on one of the biggest opportunities to push for meaningful change. Media and Congress were "not kind" to his price increases. Well, who passed the laws that allowed for those price increases and stifled competition? At the time, I was hoping Shkreli would double down, go all in, and blame Congress for passing the laws that were allowing for such price increases and preventing competition (which big pharma had lobbied for and gotten passed earlier). Demand that if Congress was serious about getting him to reduce prices, all they had to do was repeal those laws. I.e., pass the buck back and say "well if you don't like this behavior, then why did you pass these laws?" and "oh, by the way, how many campaign contributions and PAC donations did you get for passing these laws?" He could then pivot to say "hey, I'm not raising prices to make money [at least not anymore], I'm raising prices to increase awareness and bring accountability to Congress and hold their feet to the fire."

icebraining 8y ago
> blame Congress for passing the laws that were allowing for such price increases and preventing competition That would be weird, since Daraprim (the drug he hiked) was out of patent, anyone could make and sell it, and in fact a competitor did jut a couple of months later[1]. How was Congress preventing competition? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/30/express-scripts-imprimis-to-offer-daraprim-alternative.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/30/express-scripts-imprimis-to-...
- king07828 8y ago
  Patents weren't the issue. As I recall, Shkreli's company had the exclusive right to market the drug in the US, regardless of patent protection. For example, the FDA provides regulatory exclusivity that prevents generics from entering the market even after the patent expires. [1] Patents were a collateral issue. On that collateral issue, one of the issues with patents is that drug companies have a tendency to stop producing drugs towards the end of life of a patent to force patients onto a newly patented drug. This practice could be stopped by allowing generics to produce, market, and sell when the patent holder will not. [1] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2017/sep/determinants-market-exclusivity-prescription-drugs-united https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-articl...
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Fair enough, there are other protections besides patents. Still, that doesn't seem to be the case here at all; like I wrote, competitors were selling alternatives within a couple of months. What seems to me is that the market was crowded out while the primary producer kept the prices low; when they were raised, the market responded.
seabird 8y ago
He would he a moron to say anything about pricing after his fraud case kicked off. All it would do is dig him into a deeper hole. The prosecutor picked the fight because they knew he was viewed as such an asshole that there was no way anyone would think any differently of him. It's the reason he's in jail for seven years despite making profits for those he defrauded (remember that sentencing in these cases is often dependent on damages) and Elizabeth Holmes isn't. Good PR juju goes a long way: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mariappan-jawaharlal/tale-of-two-ceos-elizabeth-holmes-martin-shkreli_b_8197094.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mariappan-jawaharlal/tale-...

icebraining 8y ago

> blame Congress for passing the laws that were allowing for such price increases and preventing competition That would be weird, since Daraprim (the drug he hiked) was out of patent, anyone could make and sell it, and in fact a competitor did jut a couple of months later[1]. How was Congress preventing competition? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/30/express-scripts-imprimis-to-offer-daraprim-alternative.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/30/express-scripts-imprimis-to-...

king07828 8y ago
Patents weren't the issue. As I recall, Shkreli's company had the exclusive right to market the drug in the US, regardless of patent protection. For example, the FDA provides regulatory exclusivity that prevents generics from entering the market even after the patent expires. [1] Patents were a collateral issue. On that collateral issue, one of the issues with patents is that drug companies have a tendency to stop producing drugs towards the end of life of a patent to force patients onto a newly patented drug. This practice could be stopped by allowing generics to produce, market, and sell when the patent holder will not. [1] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2017/sep/determinants-market-exclusivity-prescription-drugs-united https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-articl...
- icebraining 8y ago
  Fair enough, there are other protections besides patents. Still, that doesn't seem to be the case here at all; like I wrote, competitors were selling alternatives within a couple of months. What seems to me is that the market was crowded out while the primary producer kept the prices low; when they were raised, the market responded.

seabird 8y ago

He would he a moron to say anything about pricing after his fraud case kicked off. All it would do is dig him into a deeper hole. The prosecutor picked the fight because they knew he was viewed as such an asshole that there was no way anyone would think any differently of him. It's the reason he's in jail for seven years despite making profits for those he defrauded (remember that sentencing in these cases is often dependent on damages) and Elizabeth Holmes isn't. Good PR juju goes a long way: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mariappan-jawaharlal/tale-of-two-ceos-elizabeth-holmes-martin-shkreli_b_8197094.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mariappan-jawaharlal/tale-...