3 ms·

> If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it. Sure I guess it's better than nothing,

> If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it. Sure I guess it's better than nothing, but it's also proof this clearly isn't the solution to the $600 epipen problem. DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!)

tablespoon 5y ago
> DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!) Yeah, the answer is $600 is far too expensive. IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation (e.g. limiting the profit margin on generics or even drugs more generally), or some kind of boutique government-owned generic maker tasked with being a manufacturer of last resort and selling generics at its cost (which should be higher than a non-price-gouging private company, so it works to put a price-ceiling on those companies and also acts as insurance against unavailability).
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation. If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    The computer market is not particularly regulated, yet we still have international big tech monopolies stifling competition. I think the US simultaneously needs: • less regulation, to reduce barriers-to-entry • more regulation, to allow competition Normally, I'd be concerned about reduced regulations having safety implications, but the existing situation is already unsafe.
    - waterhouse 5y ago
      Patents are a big part of how the stifling is done. Getting rid of them, or at least cutting their term by a factor of 3-4, would help a great deal.
      - kragen 5y ago
        While I agree that patents are net harmful, especially in software, if you cut their term by a factor of 4 to 5 years, many of them would expire before being granted, which would be a hard policy to defend.
        waterhouse 5y ago
        Heh, interesting. Perhaps that problem would self-correct after a while; if the payoff for a patent was lower, fewer would apply and there would be less of a backlog... Hmm, looking into it, https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html measures a bunch of different things, but it seems "traditional total pendency" is the main metric, and it seems to be about 2 years on that at the moment. Of course, if there's high variance, then that could mean that a bunch do take 5 years. That said, if a patent is pending and no one knows when it'll be granted, is that not enough? Would competitors really introduce their own patent-violating version, knowing they may have to suddenly cut production if the patent goes through? Do they do that today? At any rate, those delays seem absurd; presumably they're due to having a backlog, due to the USPTO not employing enough people, due presumably to them not having enough of a budget. Not that I'm in favor of giving money to patent-granters, though. I wonder if a fee paid by the patent-holders—say, a small percentage of the revenue from selling patented products—would be a reasonable way to fund it.
        kragen 5y ago
        Competitors might have a bigger incentive to try to delay the granting of the patent with red tape. I don't know how common it is today to introduce a product while planning to cancel it if a competitor's pending patent gets granted. The funding of the PTO has been a contentious political issue for decades.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation. > If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine. I doubt it. IIRC, EpiPens are off-patent, and the only thing holding back competition is the need to demonstrate the competing product is safe, reliable, and equivalent. I even believe a competitor product was withdrawn from the market because it was delivering an unreliable dosage. So if you remove the regulations, you'll probably get a flood of corner-cutting crap that's dangerous. That's likely especially true for an emergency use item like an EpiPen, which literally sits on a shelf unused unless there's an emergency (leaving a big opportunity to sell defective items undetected by consumers).

tablespoon 5y ago

> DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!) Yeah, the answer is $600 is far too expensive. IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation (e.g. limiting the profit margin on generics or even drugs more generally), or some kind of boutique government-owned generic maker tasked with being a manufacturer of last resort and selling generics at its cost (which should be higher than a non-price-gouging private company, so it works to put a price-ceiling on those companies and also acts as insurance against unavailability).

ur-whale 5y ago
> IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation. If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  The computer market is not particularly regulated, yet we still have international big tech monopolies stifling competition. I think the US simultaneously needs: • less regulation, to reduce barriers-to-entry • more regulation, to allow competition Normally, I'd be concerned about reduced regulations having safety implications, but the existing situation is already unsafe.
  - waterhouse 5y ago
    Patents are a big part of how the stifling is done. Getting rid of them, or at least cutting their term by a factor of 3-4, would help a great deal.
    - kragen 5y ago
      While I agree that patents are net harmful, especially in software, if you cut their term by a factor of 4 to 5 years, many of them would expire before being granted, which would be a hard policy to defend.
      - waterhouse 5y ago
        Heh, interesting. Perhaps that problem would self-correct after a while; if the payoff for a patent was lower, fewer would apply and there would be less of a backlog... Hmm, looking into it, https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html measures a bunch of different things, but it seems "traditional total pendency" is the main metric, and it seems to be about 2 years on that at the moment. Of course, if there's high variance, then that could mean that a bunch do take 5 years. That said, if a patent is pending and no one knows when it'll be granted, is that not enough? Would competitors really introduce their own patent-violating version, knowing they may have to suddenly cut production if the patent goes through? Do they do that today? At any rate, those delays seem absurd; presumably they're due to having a backlog, due to the USPTO not employing enough people, due presumably to them not having enough of a budget. Not that I'm in favor of giving money to patent-granters, though. I wonder if a fee paid by the patent-holders—say, a small percentage of the revenue from selling patented products—would be a reasonable way to fund it.
        kragen 5y ago
        Competitors might have a bigger incentive to try to delay the granting of the patent with red tape. I don't know how common it is today to introduce a product while planning to cancel it if a competitor's pending patent gets granted. The funding of the PTO has been a contentious political issue for decades.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation. > If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine. I doubt it. IIRC, EpiPens are off-patent, and the only thing holding back competition is the need to demonstrate the competing product is safe, reliable, and equivalent. I even believe a competitor product was withdrawn from the market because it was delivering an unreliable dosage. So if you remove the regulations, you'll probably get a flood of corner-cutting crap that's dangerous. That's likely especially true for an emergency use item like an EpiPen, which literally sits on a shelf unused unless there's an emergency (leaving a big opportunity to sell defective items undetected by consumers).