8 ms·

Everyone will have kids one day or knows someone who will. And if that kid is born with type-1 diabetes they will require insulin everyday or else they will die

• SirSavary 5y ago
  The $86 insulin is not worse.
• hourislate 5y ago
  I agree that Insulin should be free for everyone, it just makes sense. But you make it sound as if Walmart is making money on this. I would bet it barely covers their cost (Break Even). They did this because they have the power to do this (twist some arms). Don't blame Walmart, blame your government for allowing Big Pharma to charge 80% more in the USA than they do almost anywhere else in the World.
• solarkraft 5y ago
  Why would it be worse?
  • cabraca 5y ago
    Because this old style insulin acts slower than the more modern version and requires a rigid eating schedule. See: https://diabetesstrong.com/walmart-insulin/ https://diabetesstrong.com/walmart-insulin/
    • wbl 5y ago
      The article says that this is one of the newer ones distinct from the formulation they already sell.
    • guardiangod 5y ago
      > Because this old style insulin acts slower than the more modern version and requires a rigid eating schedule. Good thing the article is about Walmart now selling 'analog insulin' ie. modern version of insulin
    • loeg 5y ago
      The one the article is talking about unveiling is the new style ($86 at Walmart). (The old style can already be found at Walmart for $25.) Walmart sucks in a lot of ways, but this article does not demonstrate that.
• m3kw9 5y ago
  Which corp is gonna distribute something for free? This is a government’s job.
  • barbacoa 5y ago
    Government doesn't do anything for free it's the tax payer that pay.
    • YinLuck- 5y ago
      When was the last time you read anything? Last century? The government funds as much of its spending through printing as it does taxing.
    • pjerem 5y ago
      Yeah that’s the point of a government. Oh, and that’s also why they are elected democratically.
  • artificialLimbs 5y ago
    The government never distributes anything for free. They distribute it with money taken forcibly from citizenry. Be careful what you're asking for in begging the government to take care of you. They just may.
    • staticassertion 5y ago
      wow huh, never thought of that - just learned about "taxes" being a thing from hacker news, thanks for the insight, no one here ever would have made the massive leap to know that governments are funded through taxation good thing there are two comments about it!!!
      • _jal 5y ago
        A disturbing number of people think they're actually adding value by doing this. Orwell called it 'Duckspeak'.
    • 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• csnover 5y ago
  Last year, Minnesota passed the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act, which requires the major insulin manufacturers to provide 30-day emergency supplies of insulin for no more than $35, and 90-day supplies for no more than $50, for anyone meeting the program guidelines[0]. The law was modelled around the companies’ existing patient assistance programs, and despite assurances from industry reps, PhRMA sued the state anyway just hours before the law was due to take effect[1]. This spring, their lawsuit was dismissed[2]. This law isn’t a great solution if you think that insulin should be free to all, but it is at least something that other states can use as a model to try to help their citizens access to cheaper, high-quality insulin. [0] https://www.mninsulin.org/ https://www.mninsulin.org/ [1] https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/07/why-so-many-people-at-the-capitol-are-so-pissed-off-about-the-drug-industrys-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-new-emergency-insulin-program/ https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/07/why-so-man... [2] https://www.twincities.com/2021/03/16/alec-smith-insulin-affordability-mn-lawsuit-phrma/ https://www.twincities.com/2021/03/16/alec-smith-insulin-aff...
  • arcticbull 5y ago
    This is the weirdest socialized medicine I've ever seen, "offer valid only for COVID tests, COVID vaccines and Insulin (terms and conditions apply)." This kind of targeted quick fix is kind of the epitome of the little patches you put on a leaky kids swimming pool.
    • xtracto 5y ago
      Just yesterday my wife and I were watching "last week tonight" episode on US health share orgs. (Like a health insurance, but religious and unregulated). My impression was: The crazy hoops and loops that Americans will go through for healthcare just to NOT implement a sensible social healthcare program.
      • gunapologist99 5y ago
        I certainly understand that reaction, but I don't think it's crazy. I just joined one. My primary care physician recommended it. It's about 28% the cost of the regulated ACA plans in my area for my size family. Read that number again. And, it covers everything (except no pre-existing conditions) except for things like cosmetic surgery. The list of things that the ACA plan didn't cover at all was confusing and pretty lengthy, and it had a $9k deductible (or more, many of the cheaper plans had $15k deductibles) per family member, and double that (two family member's worth) for a max family deductible. To me, that is crazy. And, for the cheaper plans, they required coinsurance, so if I had a disease that would cost $200k, I would owe $67k. Most amazingly, there's no deductible except for the $400-per-visit deductible. (There's no free maintenance or co-pays or anything like that.) Everything is covered after the $400-per-visit deductible, and there's virtually no maximum. Go to the ER, max of $400. Go for a checkup, probably pay it yourself (unless it exceeds $400). (One could argue that they should cover an annual checkup, but if it was just a matter of adding $150/year to everyone's plan, what's the point; that's an arbitrary amount that can be budgeted in once you know to expect it. Since it's people of that religion only, some built-in pre-qualification occurs to eliminate people who would just abuse the system.) These health share non-profit organizations have paid out billions by cooperating and coordinating among their members, and you negotiate with the hospital directly as a cash patient and make your own choice of care and providers. It's somewhat akin to how a credit union is dissimilar to a bank. I personally find the idea fascinating and certainly prefer it to forced socialized medicine.
• UseStrict 5y ago
  But they are selling both under their store-brand ReliOn. The less effective original formulation for $25, and the analog is the more effective one being sold at $86. Still an absurdly high cost in my opinion, but to get the higher quality analog insulin for like a quarter of the price of the name brands is going to be life saving for a lot of people.
  • jessedhillon 5y ago
    In case anyone else has no experience with diabetes and is looking for key quantities to understand the context here: - "Most people with diabetes need at least 2 insulin shots a day. Some people need 3 or 4 shots for good blood sugar control." (https://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0801/p649.html https://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0801/p649.html) - "In November last year, Walmart launched the ReliOn Novolin 70-30 insulin pen. The cash price for a pack of five pens is $42.88, compared to $300 for the brand name option." (https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/verify-yes-walmart-does-sell-25-insulin-without-prescription-or-insurance/83-26b7efb9-d5e1-43d6-8874-7fcc05a71ccc https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/verify-yes-walmart-do...) So we're talking about $25 for 1-2 days of vital injections. Approx $4,500 - $9,100 annually.
    • srtjstjsj 5y ago
      A pen is expensive because it's got single serve packaging. A vial has 1000units and lasts about 2 weeks.
      • profile53 5y ago
        Insulin pens are multi dose as well. Usually last a few days to.m a week each.
• RHSeeger 5y ago
  > The inventor of (a specific kind of man-made) insulin sold the patent for $1 Analog insulins are different than the type that the $1 patent is for. They are much more advanced and are much more complex to make. That doesn't speak to whether or not the current prices for insulin are reasonable (they're not)... but you make it sound like "someone invented this and made the patent free, and now people are selling it for $86"... which is not the case.; not even remotely.
  • friedegg 5y ago
    But the patent on this, insulin aspart (humalog is insulin lispro, the competitor), is now expired, so the patent isn't a factor in the cost. The fact it costs 10x more than it did when it was introduced to the market in the mid-90's is just absolutely crazy.
    • bart_spoon 5y ago
      Its middlemen. Lilly has been pretty adamant that their revenue per unit has been inline with inflation, despite the sticker price skyrocketing. Presumably that can be fact checked with their financial data. They insist that its PBMs and insurers gaming the rebate system. Unfortunately the rebate system is incredibly opaque and PBMs insist on keeping this way to protect trade secrets.
      • RHSeeger 5y ago
        My understanding is that it's both of them. - Lilly wants to set the price at, to pick a random number, $100 per bottle. - PBM says "I need to tell the insurance company I saved them 50%, so you have to charge _my_ client 50% of list price" - Lilly wants their business, so changes the list price to $200. - Then Lilly "graciously" lets people without insurance use a coupon to _only_ pay $100 for it. Everybody gets to pretend they're the good guy. But the insulin costs $5 to make.. so really, they're not (once again, made up numbers).
        • srtjstjsj 5y ago
• loeg 5y ago
  I'm with you for most of the comment, but: > The idea that someone without means should have to pay Walmart $86 for a worse low-budget insulin is disgusting. The article is talking about the modern formulation for $86. The older-style worse formulation is $25. As I understand it, and I may be mistaken, $86 is very competitive in this space. I don't disagree that maybe insulin should be funded by government at zero cost to the individual, but your description of the $86 formulation described in the article seems inaccurate.
• Gatsky 5y ago
  It’s no use expecting moral behaviour from a for-profit pharma corporation, which is an inherently amoral entity. You have to utilise incentives and regulation to keep prices down. One option is to adjust patent law to enable generic manufacturers to create competition. The downside of this is the generic pharma companies are usually off-shore (more profit that way) and also seem to just pretend to make the actual drug with some regularity (also more profit that way). Another option is for the US government to negotiate drug prices. The US market for medicine is so large that they would have incredible power to cut good deals. The downside to this option is that it will inevitably lead to some form of corruption eg. the drug negotiators don’t try too hard so they can get a cushy job at the drug company next year in their drug negotiating unit. Anyway, I am fairly sure the latter option will happen soon, perhaps for some group of essential medicines.
• grumblenum 5y ago
  So someone who isn't you should pay for its development cost, manufacture, quality control, shipping, storage, and distribution? Or should the people who do those things be conscripted into labor for the glory of these heartfelt convictions? Prior to 100 years ago, this conditions would have just been fatal. That you can keep yourself alive today for less than the cost of your mobile phone bill is a pretty good value proposition. I just don't understand the outrage.
  • ceejayoz 5y ago
    > So someone who isn't you should pay for its development cost, manufacture, quality control, shipping, storage, and distribution? Did these costs double between 2012 and 2016? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-diabetes-cost/u-s-insulin-costs-per-patient-nearly-doubled-from-2012-to-2016-study-idUSKCN1PG136 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-diabetes-c...
    • kube-system 5y ago
      No, and I agree with your point 100%, but that article does note that part of the increase was due to people changing types of insulin. So it's not as simple as companies charging 2x for the same insulin.
      • ceejayoz 5y ago
        > “Use is pretty flat, and the price changes are occurring in both older and newer products. That surprised me. The exact same products are costing double,” she said.
• bart_spoon 5y ago
  > The idea that someone without means should have to pay Walmart $86 for a worse low-budget insulin is disgusting. Its not worse, its significantly better. The version of insulin sold for $1 is human insulin, which has been available at Walmart for $25 for many years. The version being discussed here is human analogue insulin, which was invented by the pharma companies in the past few decades. Its significantly better tolerated, and the rates at which the body can uptake the insulin can be tweaked to be much faster or long-lasting. Its like comparing a Tesla to a Ford Model T.
  • whymauri 5y ago
    >Its like comparing a Tesla to a Ford Model T. Honestly, yeah. The quality of life improvement between the two is humongous. I've heard treatment on the older insulin therapies described as "a life ruled by the clock where a mistake means death."
• xattt 5y ago
  RN with some diabetes education experience here. Some of the ultra lente insulins (degludec, glargine) are q 24h to q 36h dosing, which approaches the convenience of an insulin pump (which are wildly expensive). Insulin pumps requires some maintenance but not as inconvenient as regular injections. This is not the kind of insulin that Walmart is announcing. What is going on is that big pharma is now charging a premium for the user experience, and not the actual cost of the product or amortizing R&D. (Of course the caveat here is that a therapy regimen that uses ultra lente insulins exclusively may be suitable for some type II diabetics who hadn’t achieved appropriate glucose control on oral antihyperglycemics, and that insulin dosing with meals using rapid acting insulin on top of a ultra slow acting insulin may follow after a while).
  • panzagl 5y ago
    Sounds similar to what happened to Epipens- the drug is long out of patent, but the injector/delivery system gets continual minor tweaks to stay proprietary.
• subsubzero 5y ago
  This is a thing somebody like Bill Gates or Buffet should take up, scrap together a company and provide these life saving drugs at rock bottom prices, I feel like alot of their stuff has not been very relevant considering the $$$'s behind their non-profit ventures.
• refurb 5y ago
  It’s not the same insulin. Great rant though.