5 ms·

It's not branding, the newer insulin is significantly different and better for almost every patient. https://diabetesstrong.com/walmart-insulin/ https://diabete

It's not branding, the newer insulin is significantly different and better for almost every patient. https://diabetesstrong.com/walmart-insulin/ https://diabetesstrong.com/walmart-insulin/ It's likely not what your doctor prescribed, it doesn't last as long, it requires you (or your young children) to eat on a very specific schedule, it can't be used with an insulin pen or insulin pump, it's just all around a worse and less effective treatment.

jart 5y ago
When were these newer insulins invented? Are they a recent thing? Was it the case that twenty years ago, "Walmart" insulin was the only insulin?
- jimrandomh 5y ago
  1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_lispro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_lispro
gruez 5y ago
Seems like everything is working as intended? A corporation invests money to develop a better product, and the government gives them a 20 year monopoly on it so they charge a premium and recoup their investment. As a patient if you want to pay the premium for it, you can get the better product, otherwise you can still stick with whatever walmart's selling. It's worse, but it's not any worse than what you'd had if the company didn't come along and invented the better product.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  But that does not make for emotion inducing tweets.
- OriginalNebula 5y ago
  Do you think a gross profit margin of 93% is fair?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Define fair and unfair. If it was so "unfairly" lucrative, I would have to ask why everyone does not invest in pharma? Why are tech companies where much of the VC funds land? Perhaps it is because there a huge amount of risk involved?
- DerpyBaby123 5y ago
  That's not what is happening. It has nothing to do with a patent monopoly or recouping any investment: FTA: >In 1996, a vial of Humalog produced by Eli Lilly cost $21. Today, it's priced at $324 despite the cost of production remaining steady. >Rising costs are nothing new. Insulin prices tripled from 2002 to 2013, and doubled between 2012 and 2016. To put this into perspective, in 1996 a vial of Humalog produced by Eli Lilly cost $21. Today, it's priced at $324 despite the cost of production remaining steady. If everything is working as intended, it begs the question, what institution intended for patients to die from rationing insulin[0], and why is the USA ok with that institution's intention? [0]https://www.ontrackdiabetes.com/live-well/diabetes-management/insulin-rationing-what-it-why-its-so-dangerous https://www.ontrackdiabetes.com/live-well/diabetes-managemen...
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    If it was developed in 1996, the patent protection would have expired by now. If the cost of production was "steady", then the question is why is a competitor not jumping in to make and sell something that would earn them a huge profit margin?
    - reddiky 5y ago
      https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/why_people_with_diabetes_cant_buy_generic_insulin https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/why_peop...
    - DerpyBaby123 5y ago
      Do you doubt it was developed in 1996? Do you have evidence that the cost of production has significantly risen? Otherwise, you seem to be repeating the old economics joke: "The young economist looks down and sees a $20 bill on the street and says, “Hey, look a twenty-dollar bill!” Without even looking, his older and wiser colleague replies, “Nonsense. If there had been a twenty-dollar lying on the street, someone would have already picked it up by now.”"
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
- burkaman 5y ago
  Yes it is working as intended, the argument is that those intentions are inhumane. Can you think of any medical treatments that were developed without the promise of 20 years of limitless profits? I can.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Can you think of any medical treatments that were developed without the promise of 20 years of limitless profits? I can. This sounds like it's responding to a strawman. Proponents of the patent system aren't claiming that zero innovation would happen without patents, just that it would be much less. In other words: No patent system: only inventions from altruistic inventors Patent system: inventions from altruistic inventors and profit-focused inventors.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      Let's say corporations were only promised a 10 year monopoly instead of 20. Do you think their business would collapse, or would they keep trying? If profit-focused inventors could still be motivated by a 10 year horizon, then that extra 10 years only benefits corporate executives and kills patients. So, is the patent system as limited as possible while still encouraging innovation? Obviously not, because pharma companies routinely direct billions of dollars in profit into stock buybacks instead of research or any other actual investment. They can easily afford to make less profit.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >Do you think their business would collapse, It would depend on the project's margins and/or sunk costs. A project that had very little invested in it or is a breakout success might we able to weather a 50% cut in exclusivity period, but a marginal product might not. Most of the already developed drugs are probably going to be fine, assuming that the financing for them was already secured. >or would they keep trying? For the projects at the margins? most certainly. That is not to say all private drug development would, stop. If some sort of unpatented-but-super-cheap-to-perfect-but-still-not-patented drug showed up it might still be developed, but in aggregate I'd expect drug development to drop significantly.
sparrish 5y ago
Novolin is available as an insulin pen. I use it twice-a-day and it's available at the prices specified.

jart 5y ago

When were these newer insulins invented? Are they a recent thing? Was it the case that twenty years ago, "Walmart" insulin was the only insulin?

jimrandomh 5y ago
1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_lispro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_lispro

gruez 5y ago

Seems like everything is working as intended? A corporation invests money to develop a better product, and the government gives them a 20 year monopoly on it so they charge a premium and recoup their investment. As a patient if you want to pay the premium for it, you can get the better product, otherwise you can still stick with whatever walmart's selling. It's worse, but it's not any worse than what you'd had if the company didn't come along and invented the better product.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
But that does not make for emotion inducing tweets.
OriginalNebula 5y ago
Do you think a gross profit margin of 93% is fair?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Define fair and unfair. If it was so "unfairly" lucrative, I would have to ask why everyone does not invest in pharma? Why are tech companies where much of the VC funds land? Perhaps it is because there a huge amount of risk involved?
DerpyBaby123 5y ago
That's not what is happening. It has nothing to do with a patent monopoly or recouping any investment: FTA: >In 1996, a vial of Humalog produced by Eli Lilly cost $21. Today, it's priced at $324 despite the cost of production remaining steady. >Rising costs are nothing new. Insulin prices tripled from 2002 to 2013, and doubled between 2012 and 2016. To put this into perspective, in 1996 a vial of Humalog produced by Eli Lilly cost $21. Today, it's priced at $324 despite the cost of production remaining steady. If everything is working as intended, it begs the question, what institution intended for patients to die from rationing insulin[0], and why is the USA ok with that institution's intention? [0]https://www.ontrackdiabetes.com/live-well/diabetes-management/insulin-rationing-what-it-why-its-so-dangerous https://www.ontrackdiabetes.com/live-well/diabetes-managemen...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  If it was developed in 1996, the patent protection would have expired by now. If the cost of production was "steady", then the question is why is a competitor not jumping in to make and sell something that would earn them a huge profit margin?
  - reddiky 5y ago
    https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/why_people_with_diabetes_cant_buy_generic_insulin https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/why_peop...
  - DerpyBaby123 5y ago
    Do you doubt it was developed in 1996? Do you have evidence that the cost of production has significantly risen? Otherwise, you seem to be repeating the old economics joke: "The young economist looks down and sees a $20 bill on the street and says, “Hey, look a twenty-dollar bill!” Without even looking, his older and wiser colleague replies, “Nonsense. If there had been a twenty-dollar lying on the street, someone would have already picked it up by now.”"
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
burkaman 5y ago
Yes it is working as intended, the argument is that those intentions are inhumane. Can you think of any medical treatments that were developed without the promise of 20 years of limitless profits? I can.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Can you think of any medical treatments that were developed without the promise of 20 years of limitless profits? I can. This sounds like it's responding to a strawman. Proponents of the patent system aren't claiming that zero innovation would happen without patents, just that it would be much less. In other words: No patent system: only inventions from altruistic inventors Patent system: inventions from altruistic inventors and profit-focused inventors.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Let's say corporations were only promised a 10 year monopoly instead of 20. Do you think their business would collapse, or would they keep trying? If profit-focused inventors could still be motivated by a 10 year horizon, then that extra 10 years only benefits corporate executives and kills patients. So, is the patent system as limited as possible while still encouraging innovation? Obviously not, because pharma companies routinely direct billions of dollars in profit into stock buybacks instead of research or any other actual investment. They can easily afford to make less profit.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Do you think their business would collapse, It would depend on the project's margins and/or sunk costs. A project that had very little invested in it or is a breakout success might we able to weather a 50% cut in exclusivity period, but a marginal product might not. Most of the already developed drugs are probably going to be fine, assuming that the financing for them was already secured. >or would they keep trying? For the projects at the margins? most certainly. That is not to say all private drug development would, stop. If some sort of unpatented-but-super-cheap-to-perfect-but-still-not-patented drug showed up it might still be developed, but in aggregate I'd expect drug development to drop significantly.

sparrish 5y ago

Novolin is available as an insulin pen. I use it twice-a-day and it's available at the prices specified.