14 ms·
Most Expensive Drugs in the U.S.
- akamoonknight 5y agoMaybe naive question, but why do _any_ insurance companies provide payments for these medications?
- H8crilA 5y agoFree market? Wouldn't you like your insurance to cover all diseases? I know I would.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- johntdyer 5y agoWell… Because my doctor prescribed it and said it’s necessary, and as it turns out it was…. I’m just thankful that I have good insurance…
- KMnO4 5y agoDo insurance companies actually pay full price for these drugs? I was under the impression that (at least in the US) it’s a bit of a racket where the bill will say $1000 and insurance will make a deal with the supplier to pay $100 (while simultaneously telling you they saved you $1000).
- tamaharbor 5y agoI do a GoodRx price check of every drug I see advertised on TV. There is typically no drug that costs less than $5k a month. Is there a problem here?
- LeegleechN 5y agoMost prescribed drugs are generics that will cost you a couple bucks. The drugs advertised on TV are precisely the ones with high margins that support expensive customer acquisition efforts.
- to11mtm 5y agoYeah. New Drugs are 'new', have probably just gone through expensive R&D and Trial periods, so there is a need to recoup investment. Of course, there's the problem of when companies make a 'new' drug that is very similar to an existing drug/generic that already exists. A great example of that in my head is how Cymbalta is not that much different than Effexor.
- willcipriano 5y agoThe most egregious was when the CFC ban went into place and the non-CFC inhalers were all under patent again.
- sonofhans 5y agoYes. The problem is allowing pharmaceutical products to be advertised directly to consumers. That’s only legal in 2 countries — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising As a consequence, many large drug companies spend more money marketing drugs than developing them — https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/do-biopharma-companies-really-spend-more-on-market https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/...
- listenallyall 5y agoBut if there wasn't an opportunity to market them directly to people, many drugs would never have been made at all.
- sonofhans 5y agoExcellent. I would argue strongly that it’s an anti-pattern if literally the only way to sell a drug is to market it to people directly. This is the essence of consumer marketing — it only fulfills needs that it first creates, e.g., “Your breath is disgusting and people mock you behind your back, so use this mouthwash.”
- listenallyall 5y agoThat's kind of the default, "let's be cynical", viewpoint, don't you think? Some people do have awful breath. Lots of old men couldn't get an erection. Certainly you aren't claiming that diabetes, arthritis, or depression are not a real issues to be treated? Today I saw a commercial for a shingles vaccine. All I know about shingles is that David Letterman got it and it kept him off the air for a while and he said it was miserable. I'd certainly consider getting a vaccine.
- tristanc 5y agoUnfortunately seems unavailable in Europe...
- felixg3 5y agoFortunately, most of us Europeans do not need to compare prices of prescription medication.
- ryan93 5y agoComparing the prices of unavailable medicine?
- 1123581321 5y agoMost of these aren’t available in Europe or European approval lagged the US (not that the US is as fast is it should be.) Europeans have had to fundraise to personally pay for such niche medications.
- celticninja 5y agoI can't see the list (from EU) but this is an example https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/01/baby-boy-is-first-to-receive-18m-treatment-for-spinal-muscular-atrophy-on-nhs https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/01/baby-boy-is-... I am willing to bet that this is used to save more lives in the UK than the drug will in the US. spinal muscular atrophy is the number 1 cause of child mortality in the UK, now any child with this disease can get the treatment. In the US people will still need to jump through hoops with their insurance company to get the treatment and there will be cases that go untreated because of the cost.
- 1123581321 5y agoZolgensma is one on the list that was approved earlier in the US than in Europe, requiring parents to fundraise during the gap period. Regarding absolute numbers, there are more SMA cases in the US than the UK. This is due to the overall population difference as well as a larger number of disproportionately affected populations which contributes to a higher rate of incidence. Zolgensma is authorized for treatment and payment using a similar review process and set of criteria in both countries. This is the case for both private/employer insurance coverage and pediatric public health programs. So I would take that bet. Generally speaking, the US insurance system handles catastrophically expensive cases well. It’s the smallish cases (broken legs, etc) that are burdensome as copays leave families on the hook for several hundred to a few thousand dollars after insurance pays its contribution.
- bitmover 5y agoAll I could think about reading that list is, "damn I'm glad we have a drug for that."
- jumelles 5y agoYep, medicine is incredible. The cost of medication is still a massive issue in the world, though.
- standardUser 5y agoAll I could thing was "damn, too bad so many people who desperately need these drugs can't afford them".
- colechristensen 5y agoThe max out-of-pocket for anyone insured in the US is $8,550 presently for an individual. The big price tag is irrelevant, there's the most you can spend on approved treatments in a year.
- jakeva 5y ago$8,550 is a lot of money to most Americans
- NortySpock 5y ago...Plus the money you pay monthly in order to have health insurance.
- dillondoyle 5y agoAnd also IF you can get your insurance to cover or get it on formulary. The article lists links on most of these drugs the companies actively helping patients get it covered.
- standardUser 5y ago30 million Americans are uninsured. You can't just conveniently pretend 30 million humans don't exist to make a point.
- enahs-sf 5y agoAll of the drugs on this list seem to treat some pretty nasty conditions. I wonder what the payback time for the research is and the target market looks like for each one. I also wonder what the landscape of medicine will look like when generic versions of these become available. How many awesome treatments are out there but uncovered by insurance and thus, out of reach for all but the most rich individuals.
- philjohn 5y agoOn the flipside, a treatment for Wilson's disease that was first authorised for use in 1985, Syprine, is now well over $200 per tablet - the problem here, it's probably not worth making a generic as the market is pretty small.
- H8crilA 5y agoIf you have $300/month you can afford those drugs. That's barely ultra rich.
- throwaway13337 5y agoIt would be nice to have a comparison to non-US costs. I know the medication I take costs 5-6k a month in the US (without insurance) but I am able to get it for 700-2k in everywhere else. I suppose it's about what you'd like to highlight.
- sneak 5y agoIt's a real shame that you're not allowed to freely transport lifesaving medications across borders.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoYou have the FDA to thank for that.
- LatteLazy 5y agoThe most expensive drug on the list costs 2m, but then you're done. Cured. The second most expensive costs 1m. But that's per year. 1m/year > 2m/lifetime
- johntdyer 5y agoYep, I can’t testify personally that Solaris is a treatment , not a cure
- woleium 5y agoSadly though, even with the drug lifetime in this case is only 15-19 years.
- johntdyer 5y agoYea, well Myasthenia Gravis is not terminal, so I’ll likely be on Solaris for the next 30-40 years… so $28,000,000 USD :(
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- johntdyer 5y agoSo fwiw I take Solaris every two weeks to treat Myasthenia Gravis and it probably saved my life. It’s an auto immune disease that causes voluntary muscles to quickly tire, and you would be surprised what actually qualifies at voluntary, eg your diaphragm…. So yea, these drugs may be unaffordable and that needs to change , but they do save lives.
- the_svd_doctor 5y agoI’m glad that drug is helping you. I’m curious, do you know if it is available in other countries? If yes, then we are basically just subsidizing other places which can buy it, most likely, for much cheaper.
- KMnO4 5y agoWhat is “annual cost based on length of therapy”? If you take a pill for 3 months at $10k/month does it have an “annual cost” of $120k or $30k? And if it’s the latter then it would be less confusing if “annual” were omitted.
- eplanit 5y agoI notice how the prices are not rationalized beyond "because that's what Pharma charges" because of rarity of the illnesses, etc. But there's no concrete 'why' the prices are what they are. It seems they charge what they can get away with charging (it is a market economy, after all). It's not goodrx's fault in their reporting (bravo to them, in fact), it's that there is no transparency into that industry that would provide such a breakdown (that I know of -- surely never see it reported).
- CobaltFire 5y agoMy son as diagnosed with B-ALL (Leukemia) last year, and one of the drugs on this list was on the table. His genetic screening came back as it not being required/appropriate, but it really opened my eyes. I have health coverage that means I wouldn't have paid a cent, but I didn't know that at first, and the feeling that price tag left me with was something I won't forget. A cancer diagnosis is hard. The fact that not only may you lose a loved one, but then to confront the cost of treatment during the phase when you are just trying to accept that diagnosis is something else. Even without that drug I would be bankrupt if I had chosen a different career that afforded my family less coverage.
- grecy 5y ago> Even without that drug I would be bankrupt if I had chosen a different career that afforded my family less coverage The knowledge that hundreds of millions of people in the richest country that has ever existed live like that sickens me. My Mum was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. She had radiation, chemo, 4 different trail drugs and more pills and doctor visits than I ever want to remember over two and half years. Multiple multi-day stays in hospital and of course all the at-home care towards the end. It was horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on the worst person in the world. None of it cost a cent out of pocket, and my parents are both retired teachers (average middle class) with just normal public healthcare. Australia can figure this out but the USA can't? Feels more like doesn't want to.
- mnouquet 5y ago> Australia can figure this out but the USA can't? Feels more like doesn't want to. I went through the cost/revenue data from public Big Pharma companies a few years ago, long story short, the US prices are subsidizing the rest of the world's (ie. really only first world countries) "free" healthcare.
- grecy 5y ago> the US prices are subsidizing the rest of the world's (ie. really only first world countries) "free" healthcare. I hear that touted so often, and I've never seen a shred of evidence to support it. Also, if it's true - why aren't US citizens rioting in the streets about it? Surely they don't want their tax dollars paying for other countries to have more affordable healthcare than they do themselves! Just take away the profits of big pharma and health insurance companies in the US and let me know how much cheaper the entire thing would be.