3 ms·

Is the implication here that the technician at the "manufacturer" is not minimum-wage? Or is the implication supposed to be that the minimum-wage technicians w

Is the implication here that the technician at the "manufacturer" is not minimum-wage? Or is the implication supposed to be that the minimum-wage technicians who work for the "manufacturer" are magically better at following appropriate sterile procedures?

rpedroso 13y ago
If compounding pharmacies perform so poorly in this area, then it is certainly in the interest of the manufacturer to provide a better product for at least two reasons. 1) If they know ophthalmologists will prescribe the safer product, and since the demand for this drug is relatively price-inelastic, they are able to raise prices drastically (hence the $1950 discrepancy). 2) If compounding pharmacies are the ones who are under-regulated, perhaps the manufacturer actually faces sufficient regulation. In this case, they face greater liability for sterility issues, and they have a strong incentive to enforce sterile procedures. The problem with the pharmacies is not so much that the worker is paid low wages or under-skilled, but rather, that the lack of regulatory burden limits the incentive to ensure safe procedures.
mbreese 13y ago
The implication is that quality control is better at the manufacturer as opposed to the compounding pharmacy. It doesn't matter who is paid what. What matters is the quality and reproducibility of the product.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Legally, a manufacturer and a compounder are different. You can read about the regulatory differences here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounding#Regulation_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounding#Regulation_in_the_U...
refurb 13y ago
I think it's a fair comparison for the following reasons: 1) Manufacturer techs get paid a hell of a lot better than compounding pharmacy techs. I knew guys in the pharma industry, nothing more than high school pulling down $100K/yr with overtime. 2) There has been a recent incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center_meningitis_outbreak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center_...) where 48 people died and over 700 got sick from poor compounding pharmacy controls.
tedunangst 13y ago
The implication is that the minimum wage technicians at the manufacturer were magically transformed into robots who happen to be very good at following procedures.
superuser2 13y ago
Manufacturers are heavily regulated and have intensive quality control. Local compounding pharmacies do not necessarily live up to the same standards.

rpedroso 13y ago

If compounding pharmacies perform so poorly in this area, then it is certainly in the interest of the manufacturer to provide a better product for at least two reasons. 1) If they know ophthalmologists will prescribe the safer product, and since the demand for this drug is relatively price-inelastic, they are able to raise prices drastically (hence the $1950 discrepancy). 2) If compounding pharmacies are the ones who are under-regulated, perhaps the manufacturer actually faces sufficient regulation. In this case, they face greater liability for sterility issues, and they have a strong incentive to enforce sterile procedures. The problem with the pharmacies is not so much that the worker is paid low wages or under-skilled, but rather, that the lack of regulatory burden limits the incentive to ensure safe procedures.

mbreese 13y ago

The implication is that quality control is better at the manufacturer as opposed to the compounding pharmacy. It doesn't matter who is paid what. What matters is the quality and reproducibility of the product.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Legally, a manufacturer and a compounder are different. You can read about the regulatory differences here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounding#Regulation_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounding#Regulation_in_the_U...

refurb 13y ago

I think it's a fair comparison for the following reasons: 1) Manufacturer techs get paid a hell of a lot better than compounding pharmacy techs. I knew guys in the pharma industry, nothing more than high school pulling down $100K/yr with overtime. 2) There has been a recent incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center_meningitis_outbreak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center_...) where 48 people died and over 700 got sick from poor compounding pharmacy controls.

tedunangst 13y ago

The implication is that the minimum wage technicians at the manufacturer were magically transformed into robots who happen to be very good at following procedures.

superuser2 13y ago

Manufacturers are heavily regulated and have intensive quality control. Local compounding pharmacies do not necessarily live up to the same standards.