Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 17:51:34
Subject: Re:Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
In that article... it's says theres 1700% increase for this drug. I'm not seeing it from my buyer's site. Looks normal. The only thing abnormal is that there are reports of shortages...
O.o
Here's an interesting read:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM454757.pdf
Sales of Naloxone to outpatient settings increased by 72% in the last
5 years, while sales to inpatient/ER settings declined by 12%
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 17:52:21
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Frazzled wrote:Most drugs are produced in factories, not in labs. It's not a labor intensive field, and only capital intensive if you're not already in it.
You just pulled a Trump and contradicted yourself. If drugs are produced in factories, that specifically means they are in fact capital intensive.
The capital investment is made at the time of the building of said factory.
There may be other investments in technology or updating processes.
But for a drug that has been being produced for 45 years....there really is no capital expenditures for that drug. Automatically Appended Next Post: So if there is a 60% net increase in demand....
How does that equate to a 650% increase in pricing exactly....?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 17:54:14
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 17:54:15
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
reds8n wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. You are not factoring in capital costs, labor, training, and of course how much demand there is.
All of which are also a factor in foreign countries , and yet compare the costs...
... Cake or Death indeed.
Yep, thats my argument. If there are multiple manufacturers, unless those manufacturers are committing illegal price fixing then there is no reason that one of those manufacturers could not push for increased production if economically viable. Automatically Appended Next Post: TheMeanDM wrote: Frazzled wrote:Most drugs are produced in factories, not in labs. It's not a labor intensive field, and only capital intensive if you're not already in it.
You just pulled a Trump and contradicted yourself. If drugs are produced in factories, that specifically means they are in fact capital intensive.
The capital investment is made at the time of the building of said factory.
There may be other investments in technology or updating processes.
But for a drug that has been being produced for 45 years....there really is no capital expenditures for that drug.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if there is a 60% net increase in demand....
How does that equate to a 650% increase in pricing exactly....?
Ok this is basic mathtime now. To increase production you have to increase the capacity to produce that product. That means either: decreasing production in something else if technologically feasible (but there still will be a cost) or building new capacity.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 17:55:37
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 17:57:50
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
TheMeanDM wrote:And part of the reason that there is a lack of information is because the pharma companies will not and do not share production cost information....nor other information that could legitimately show a need to increase prices.
They just trot out the generic "Because...." with nothing to back it up...or...they stonewall with silence.
The only company I worked for that had any of their raw material costs out in open was ExxonMobil, but then, the whole world knows that the cost of Crude is.
I know how much my current products cost to make, but I'm not going to tell you.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 17:58:27
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Frazzled wrote:Most drugs are produced in factories, not in labs. It's not a labor intensive field, and only capital intensive if you're not already in it.
You just pulled a Trump and contradicted yourself. If drugs are produced in factories, that specifically means they are in fact capital intensive.
"only capital intensive if you're not already in it." Five companies are in it (and that's assuming they do their own manufacturing, which they probably don't). Demand is clearly present the company didn't say "we had to raise prices because of increased demand" or "prices have gone up to fund new production." They said;
Drug companies blame the increases on manufacturing and packing costs, wholesalers and insurance company policies
And it reeks of BS.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 17:58:39
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Ha ha. Basic math indeed.
Do we need to review ratios and %'s with you?
As I said....a net 60% increase in demand seems to be disproportionate to the 650% increase in one drug.
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:05:28
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote: Frazzled wrote:Most drugs are produced in factories, not in labs. It's not a labor intensive field, and only capital intensive if you're not already in it.
You just pulled a Trump and contradicted yourself. If drugs are produced in factories, that specifically means they are in fact capital intensive.
"only capital intensive if you're not already in it." Five companies are in it (and that's assuming they do their own manufacturing, which they probably don't). Demand is clearly present the company didn't say "we had to raise prices because of increased demand" or "prices have gone up to fund new production." They said;
Drug companies blame the increases on manufacturing and packing costs, wholesalers and insurance company policies
And it reeks of BS.
actually this could be because of the ACA, right now a lot of medicare patients and medical patients are losing drugs they have taken for a long time because they are no longer covered by medicare and medical, several doctors and such who used to take medical and medicare patients are not doing so much now because it is not cost effective, in fact it is only cost effective if you run a production line medical office, my dentist i go to stopped taking medical and medicare because she said she would only get paid $12 for doing x-rays and basic tooth work, she was losing money, now she no longer takes them. medicare and medical have been paying less and less for drugs now even.
|
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:10:35
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Asterios wrote:
actually this could be because of the ACA, right now a lot of medicare patients and medical patients are losing drugs they have taken for a long time because they are no longer covered by medicare and medical, several doctors and such who used to take medical and medicare patients are not doing so much now because it is not cost effective, in fact it is only cost effective if you run a production line medical office, my dentist i go to stopped taking medical and medicare because she said she would only get paid $12 for doing x-rays and basic tooth work, she was losing money, now she no longer takes them. medicare and medical have been paying less and less for drugs now even.
The ACA was passed in 2010. I don't think it explains the unexplained 17 fold increase of a drug 4-6 years later. Not on its own. A drug to counter overdoses isn't exactly on anyone's standing health plan. It's an emergency treatment.
Though I do think the ACA has had an effect on increasing healthcare costs in general. It was inevitable with expanding healthcare to millions of more people while completely not addressing our staggering healthcare costs. However the ACA was big pharma's wet dream, introducing millions of new "customers" to the market who could "afford" medications, and also made it impossible for insurance companies to not pay for treatments to people with preexisting conditions. It's providers and hospitals that took that hit. Big pharma got all the prizes in comparison.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/03 18:14:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:16:47
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Interesting observation about the ACA and this.
However...I am not sure about the corrolatuon with drug costs.
Lets say 10,000 Medicare/Medicaid (MnM for short) patients have routinely been having Drug A covered and paid for by the government at $10 / rx.
If MnM stops covering the drug....those 10,000 people are still going to need Drug A.
One of two things happens:
10,000 people pay for themselves
Or
10,000 people (or a portion there of) stop taking it because they can't afford it
In scenario 1, the drug company is still selling 10,000 units of Drug A because people are still buying it....so..they aren't losing business.
In scenario 2, demand is going down because people can't afford to buy Drug A.
So with scenario 2...the drug company feels the need to make up for that loss in revenue somehow....so they increase the cost of the drug to sell to anyone. with any insurance (or self pay) to make up for it.
Or....they increase costs of *everything* they sell to anybody...which I speculate they have been doing in addition to single drug increases.
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:19:07
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote:Asterios wrote:
actually this could be because of the ACA, right now a lot of medicare patients and medical patients are losing drugs they have taken for a long time because they are no longer covered by medicare and medical, several doctors and such who used to take medical and medicare patients are not doing so much now because it is not cost effective, in fact it is only cost effective if you run a production line medical office, my dentist i go to stopped taking medical and medicare because she said she would only get paid $12 for doing x-rays and basic tooth work, she was losing money, now she no longer takes them. medicare and medical have been paying less and less for drugs now even.
The ACA was passed in 2010. I don't think it explains the unexplained 17 fold increase of a drug 4-6 years later. Not on its own.
Though I do think the ACA has had an effect on increasing healthcare costs in general. It was inevitable with expanding healthcare to millions of more people while completely not addressing our staggering healthcare costs.
ok where is this news article about the increase? i've been scanning anything and everything about Noloxone and not finding this increase mentioned anywhere? did find an article about Adapt Pharma going to give free Noloxone kits to highschools but nothing in regards, in fact the only increase I can find is that of 60% by one company and this was on the FDA website and back in 2015:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM454757.pdf
sounds like the OP bought into a lie, and a fake story to scare monger.
here is an article from last year about it doubling in price, but still nowhere near a 1700 % increase:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/19/healey-investigates-rising-price-for-drug-that-reverses-overdoses/Wav71qeW4gbMAwb9bcx2tI/story.html
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 18:22:21
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:29:43
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
I never said 1700%
I showed a 650% increase with basic math.
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:37:07
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
TheMeanDM wrote:Ha ha. Basic math indeed.
Do we need to review ratios and %'s with you?
As I said....a net 60% increase in demand seems to be disproportionate to the 650% increase in one drug.
Basic math in the costs to increase manufacturing.
If the product demand has grown 72% then evidently the price is at he nexus of demand. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Asterios wrote:
actually this could be because of the ACA, right now a lot of medicare patients and medical patients are losing drugs they have taken for a long time because they are no longer covered by medicare and medical, several doctors and such who used to take medical and medicare patients are not doing so much now because it is not cost effective, in fact it is only cost effective if you run a production line medical office, my dentist i go to stopped taking medical and medicare because she said she would only get paid $12 for doing x-rays and basic tooth work, she was losing money, now she no longer takes them. medicare and medical have been paying less and less for drugs now even.
The ACA was passed in 2010. I don't think it explains the unexplained 17 fold increase of a drug 4-6 years later. Not on its own. A drug to counter overdoses isn't exactly on anyone's standing health plan. It's an emergency treatment.
Though I do think the ACA has had an effect on increasing healthcare costs in general. It was inevitable with expanding healthcare to millions of more people while completely not addressing our staggering healthcare costs. However the ACA was big pharma's wet dream, introducing millions of new "customers" to the market who could "afford" medications, and also made it impossible for insurance companies to not pay for treatments to people with preexisting conditions. It's providers and hospitals that took that hit. Big pharma got all the prizes in comparison.
It was inevitable only when you keep insurance companies in the middle.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 18:38:29
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:48:50
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
This shows which specific one is the 1700% increase sonce 2006:
Two vials of Hospira’s generic version, administered in hospitals, skyrocketed from $1.84 in 2006 to $31.66 by the end of 2014.
31.66÷1.84 = 17.20 = 1700% increase in 8 years
http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/05/25/our-opinion-price-hike-could-undercut-expanded-narcan-access/
(these are supporting articles showing increases of hundreds of %'s)
From 2015
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/09/10/439219409/naloxone-price-soars-key-weapon-against-heroin-overdoses
2014
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/cost-soars-heroin-overdose-antidote-naloxone-police-report/
In that one, they show 14.90 to 34.50...that is a 231% increase.
Feb 2016
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2016/02/price-spikes-overdose-reversal-drug
Again...pricing in 2014 was $690
Pricing in 2016 is now $4,500
Thats a 650% price increase
The numbers are there...and HAVE been there...so what facts exactly are you trying to discount or disprove?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 18:49:32
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:53:51
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
You're google fu is weak padawan;
Here
And here.
And here.
These article give very different measures for the price increase. The FDA breaks it down a bit with different variations having 50-60% increases last two years. One article says 4000% over a decade. OP article says 17 fold in two years which seems to be incorrect. Most of them (save the FDA which makes no judgements and just publishes data) seem to think that something is unnatural with the drug's price. The structure of the market for this drug (as described in the FDA) actually makes the price increases make more sense. Certain companies are the primary providers of the specific brands of the drug that are increasing in costs, and not all brands are going up. It makes the short term price increase of 60% make more sense, though if the 4000% increase over 10 years is true, the long term pricing of the drug still seems off.
A new naxolone autoinjector just hit the market, which has seen soaring demand. Except it hit market at a lower price than nasal naxolone which is still going up.
"If someone comes on the market with a higher price, why would you not raise yours?" said Caleb Banta-Green, PhD, who specializes in drug abuse epidemiology at the University of Washington in Seattle."
"You're being held at the whim of companies that can do what they want because they have a monopoly on a drug," she told MedPage Today. "The balance of our program rests on whether we can afford a product. That they can wantonly raise the price is terrifying.""
While there are five makers of the drug, they all produce different versions, which explains a lot. They all have their own little niche monopolies and can charge whatever they want. The bright side according to the last article I link is that new producers are coming to market in a few years, but given than a new product just hit market at a lower price power and existing products still went up in cost, that seems like misplaced optimism.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:55:24
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
"You're being held at the whim of companies that can do what they want because they have a monopoly on a drug," she told MedPage Today. "The balance of our program rests on whether we can afford a product. That they can wantonly raise the price is terrifying.""
Logic fail: If its generic they don't have a monopoly on the drug.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 18:57:21
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Read the article frazzled. The quote is about Nasal Naxolone, which is produced by one company.
Rather than try to bring new brands to market, companies seem to prefer digging themselves little niches in the market. Reminds me of cable companies. Why compete when you can build a little fiefdom to dominate?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 18:58:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 19:00:43
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
You can only really build a niche with IP, else someone else can come in and do the same thing.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 19:09:14
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Meanwhile the company producing nasal naxolone is the only one making nasal naxolone, so reality seems to disagree with possibility at the moment.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 19:20:11
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
And? What is your solution?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 19:35:28
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
price went from $20 a dose to $40 a dose a mere 100% increase, and they state it was $1 a dose over 10 years ago(that could be back in 1971 when the drug first showed up), and that was for the injectable Noxolone, not the spray which is expensive and what the article is about(you know that thing that costs more to make)
This refers back to the first link
this says what I said about a 50-60% increase, and is comparing the cost of the nasal distributor to the injection form.
LordofHats wrote:These article give very different measures for the price increase. The FDA breaks it down a bit with different variations having 50-60% increases last two years. One article says 4000% over a decade. OP article says 17 fold in two years which seems to be incorrect. Most of them (save the FDA which makes no judgements and just publishes data) seem to think that something is unnatural with the drug's price. The structure of the market for this drug (as described in the FDA) actually makes the price increases make more sense. Certain companies are the primary providers of the specific brands of the drug that are increasing in costs, and not all brands are going up. It makes the short term price increase of 60% make more sense, though if the 4000% increase over 10 years is true, the long term pricing of the drug still seems off.
A new naxolone autoinjector just hit the market, which has seen soaring demand. Except it hit market at a lower price than nasal naxolone which is still going up.
"If someone comes on the market with a higher price, why would you not raise yours?" said Caleb Banta-Green, PhD, who specializes in drug abuse epidemiology at the University of Washington in Seattle."
"You're being held at the whim of companies that can do what they want because they have a monopoly on a drug," she told MedPage Today. "The balance of our program rests on whether we can afford a product. That they can wantonly raise the price is terrifying.""
While there are five makers of the drug, they all produce different versions, which explains a lot. They all have their own little niche monopolies and can charge whatever they want. The bright side according to the last article I link is that new producers are coming to market in a few years, but given than a new product just hit market at a lower price power and existing products still went up in cost, that seems like misplaced optimism.
so like I said the original OP posted increases of 1700% and this is not so, it may be the same drug but different delivery systems which can very greatly effect costs.
|
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 19:44:05
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Don't know.
When you sit down and think about it, the market behavior makes sense. My C19H21NO4 is identical to everyone else's C19H21NO4. It's not a car where I can say mine is "higher quality." It's C19H21NO4. I can't imagine there's much variation in chemical composition. The only thing I can do in a head to head competition is lower my price, but the other guy(s) can do the same thing. It's a potential market death spiral. Why risk it when I can carve out a niche, like inventing an autoinjeced version of C19H21NO4 that I can sell to emergency responders? It's not like I'm directly challenging the nasal spray version. I can have my autoinjector, and the nasal spray guy can have his nasal spray and we both go about our business. It's a lot less risky, and with no competition I get more leeway in what I can charge.
I don't know what to do about it, but I do know I can get angry about the situation because it kind of sucks and artificial price increases on life saving drugs is totally sleazy.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 19:50:58
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Fair points there.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:00:35
Subject: Re:Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
As an outsider, it seems weird to me that medicines are so expensive in the USA, and I sympathise with people who have to sacrifice so much to be able to pay for medicine.
Up here in Scotland, we get our medicine and perscription drugs for free when we need them. Ok, technically, it's not free, a small amount of my tax money pays for it, but nothing like the sums quoted in the article.
Articles like this remind me how fortunate I am at times.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:03:05
Subject: Re:Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As an outsider, it seems weird to me that medicines are so expensive in the USA, and I sympathise with people who have to sacrifice so much to be able to pay for medicine.
Up here in Scotland, we get our medicine and perscription drugs for free when we need them. Ok, technically, it's not free, a small amount of my tax money pays for it, but nothing like the sums quoted in the article.
Articles like this remind me how fortunate I am at times.
Also I don't think Scotland has to contend with FDA approval either, noticed a lot of drugs are cheaper and available in other countries, while in the US to sell a drug it has to meet with FDA approval which can take years or even decades.
|
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:03:09
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
so like I said the original OP posted increases of 1700% and this is not so, it may be the same drug but different delivery systems which can very greatly effect costs.
Do you always ignore that which you can't refute?
This shows which specific one is the 1700% increase sonce 2006:
Two vials of Hospira’s generic version, administered in hospitals, skyrocketed from $1.84 in 2006 to $31.66 by the end of 2014.
31.66÷1.84 = 17.20 = 1700% increase in 8 years
http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/05/25/our-opinion-price-hike-could-undercut-expanded-narcan-access/
*****
All that aside...I still posted documented increases of +600% over a very short timespan.
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:06:44
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
TheMeanDM wrote:
so like I said the original OP posted increases of 1700% and this is not so, it may be the same drug but different delivery systems which can very greatly effect costs.
Do you always ignore that which you can't refute?
This shows which specific one is the 1700% increase sonce 2006:
Two vials of Hospira’s generic version, administered in hospitals, skyrocketed from $1.84 in 2006 to $31.66 by the end of 2014.
31.66÷1.84 = 17.20 = 1700% increase in 8 years
http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/05/25/our-opinion-price-hike-could-undercut-expanded-narcan-access/
*****
All that aside...I still posted documented increases of +600% over a very short timespan.
"In two years, according to Politico magazine, Kaleo Pharma’s auto-inject version of naloxone (approved specifically for people without medical training, like relatives, to give to a loved one) went from $575 to $3,750. Two vials of Hospira’s generic version, administered in hospitals, skyrocketed from $1.84 in 2006 to $31.66 by the end of 2014."
I saw that but attributed it to hospital increases.
you notice that is for the version for hospitals while the version for home use only went up 600% or so in 2 years, that might be more about the Hospitals then the pharma company themselves. what is the differential in those 2 scenarios?
furthermore that is based on What Politico magazine said, and their honesty in their information is questionable at best.
also there was this:
Hospira has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to respond to FDA concerns about its manufacturing facilities. That may have influenced its pricing.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/03 20:11:34
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:10:50
Subject: Re:Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Some people are missing the point of patents.
They encourage new inventions because the inventors can profit nicely for 20 years and then can't make any more profits because the patent lapses so they have to invent something new.
If patents didn't lapse there would be less incentive to make new inventions.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:10:53
Subject: Re:Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Asterios wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As an outsider, it seems weird to me that medicines are so expensive in the USA, and I sympathise with people who have to sacrifice so much to be able to pay for medicine.
Up here in Scotland, we get our medicine and perscription drugs for free when we need them. Ok, technically, it's not free, a small amount of my tax money pays for it, but nothing like the sums quoted in the article.
Articles like this remind me how fortunate I am at times.
Also I don't think Scotland has to contend with FDA approval either, noticed a lot of drugs are cheaper and available in other countries, while in the US to sell a drug it has to meet with FDA approval which can take years or even decades.
Good point. Obviously in Britain, we have regulations on drug safety as well, but we also have the advantage of economies of scale, as our nationalised health service buys everything in bulk.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:13:28
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
At this rate, there is no profit incentive to create cures. There is way more margin in treating rather than curing disease.
That is bad news.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/06/03 20:13:40
Subject: Big Pharma at it again: Capitalism at its finest
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
TheMeanDM wrote:
so like I said the original OP posted increases of 1700% and this is not so, it may be the same drug but different delivery systems which can very greatly effect costs.
Do you always ignore that which you can't refute?
This shows which specific one is the 1700% increase sonce 2006:
Two vials of Hospira’s generic version, administered in hospitals, skyrocketed from $1.84 in 2006 to $31.66 by the end of 2014.
31.66÷1.84 = 17.20 = 1700% increase in 8 years
http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/05/25/our-opinion-price-hike-could-undercut-expanded-narcan-access/
*****
All that aside...I still posted documented increases of +600% over a very short timespan.
I work in this industry and I don't bat an eye to that... Drug prices actually does fluctuate so Narcan will probably drop in the short term.
Take a look at the actual procedure & administrative costs, which outpaces drug costs by a huge margin. Automatically Appended Next Post: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Asterios wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As an outsider, it seems weird to me that medicines are so expensive in the USA, and I sympathise with people who have to sacrifice so much to be able to pay for medicine.
Up here in Scotland, we get our medicine and perscription drugs for free when we need them. Ok, technically, it's not free, a small amount of my tax money pays for it, but nothing like the sums quoted in the article.
Articles like this remind me how fortunate I am at times.
Also I don't think Scotland has to contend with FDA approval either, noticed a lot of drugs are cheaper and available in other countries, while in the US to sell a drug it has to meet with FDA approval which can take years or even decades.
Good point. Obviously in Britain, we have regulations on drug safety as well, but we also have the advantage of economies of scale, as our nationalised health service buys everything in bulk.
You guys do have the equivalance of the FDA... the name escapes me at the moment.
Yes, the biggest reason why meds are cheaper there is that your government does most of the heavy lifting in price negotiations.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/03 20:15:00
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
|