These drugs have been used for decades - snd now, Holy Crap!!

The number of patients getting nitroprusside, which is given intravenously when a patient’s blood pressure is dangerously high, decreased 53 percent from 2012 to 2015. At the same time, its price per 50 milligrams jumped thirtyfold, from $27.46 in 2012 to $880.88 in 2015.

The use of isoproterenol, key in monitoring and treating heart-rhythm problems during surgery, decreased 35 percent as the price per milligram rose from $26.20 to $1,790.11.

The drugs, which are off patent, have long been go-to medicines for doctors.

Draw and quarter the executives for the egregious greed!!


http://khn.org/news/hospitals-...Np0eA&_hsmi=55160128

Maybe less to do with greed and more to do with gaining enough capital to pay for the research which will bring another approved wonder drug to the market.

While I would like to agree with altruism being the motive, I think profit rules.

I have been on digoxin (a heart drug for AFib and heart failure) since I had a viral infection of my heart. Digoxin has been around for decades. and is long off patent. Generics are easily available.

Was about $10.00 for 90 days supply and now over
$50.00

It seems to me that competition would reduce prices, but not so.

Finally, there are huge numbers of horrible diseases that need treatment; sadly, some of the conditions are extremely rare and developing treatments for any price would never be cost effective. The frequency of some of the conditions approaches zero - a real conundrum.

Pharma bro.

Also, how many companies are still making those 'commodity' / generic / off patent meds? After something goes off patent, there's an initial flurry of folks getting into the business hoping to take advantage of the high prices caused by the exclusivity of the patent.

Before too long, the market is saturated, prices tank, and gradually companies will make the call whether to continue making the substance / be 'commodity' producers or divest in production of that and switch to more lucrative items. As companies stop making that item, prices rebound a bit due to supply and demand.

Seems logical to me.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Maybe less to do with greed and more to do with gaining enough capital to pay for the research which will bring another approved wonder drug to the market.

That's what stock is for. Both coming and going.

My opinion is the raise is for looking good in the ROI.

Econ 101.

Or get another company to start making them at a quarter the price. They're off patent, and company can make them.

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:


Draw and quarter the executives for the egregious greed!!


http://khn.org/news/hospitals-...Np0eA&_hsmi=55160128

Or to cover insurance premiums due to law suits?

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
These drugs have been used for decades - snd now, Holy Crap!!

Draw and quarter the executives for the egregious greed!!

There's a place - it's a veritable Utopia - for socialists.

It's called Venezuela.

You might like it there.

------------------------------------------

I guess I miss your point.

At the moment the news reports that many drugs are unavailable at any price in Venezuela.

My puzzlement is why, in a Capitalist Society, market forces are not having the expected effect on drug prices. As someone said above: Econ 101

^
Exactly.

When I first read this thread, I though these were common drugs someone would by from a pharmacy, but their not. They're used in house in hospitals. I would think the hospitals, especially the big chains, would have drug buyers who would show around their purchases. I would also think they'd be dealing with some or all of the big pharma companies directly.

If one company jacked up the price of an off patent drug on them, I would think they'd be on the phone to another company with the capability of making the drug, offering them a contract at a reasonable price if they'd make it.

I thought we were a bunch of right-wing, laissez-faire, free-market, personal liberty, leave me alone to conduct business as I see fit types.

I guess not.

quote:

I thought we were a bunch of right-wing, laissez-faire, free-market, personal liberty, leave me alone to conduct business as I see fit types.

I've been noticing some of the same hypocrisy I usually see on the left creeping in on the right as well.

Some have two sets of standards. One for when it suits their views, and another when it does not.

quote:

Originally posted by craigcpa:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Maybe less to do with greed and more to do with gaining enough capital to pay for the research which will bring another approved wonder drug to the market.

That's what stock is for. Both coming and going.

My opinion is the raise is for looking good in the ROI.

Not quite.

The more company stock you sell, the less of the company you own.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
^
Exactly.

When I first read this thread, I though these were common drugs someone would by from a pharmacy, but their not. They're used in house in hospitals. I would think the hospitals, especially the big chains, would have drug buyers who would show around their purchases. I would also think they'd be dealing with some or all of the big pharma companies directly.

If one company jacked up the price of an off patent drug on them, I would think they'd be on the phone to another company with the capability of making the drug, offering them a contract at a reasonable price if they'd make it.

There's a lot more to it than just firing up an assembly line. With the FDA regulations alone it takes a large investment and a lot of hoops to jump thru to begin producing a new medication - even one off patent.

If Company A is selling the medication at $1000 per unit and Company B invests millions of dollars in capital and time to begin producing it $600, Company A can just sell it for $100 and Company B is never able to recoup their investment.

The regulations create an artificial barrier to entry in the market, which creates this situation - not 'the free market' or 'greed'. We've never had a free market in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I thought we were a bunch of right-wing, laissez-faire, free-market, personal liberty, leave me alone to conduct business as I see fit types.

I've been noticing some of the same hypocrisy I usually see on the left creeping in on the right as well.

Some have two sets of standards. One for when it suits their views, and another when it does not.

It amy not be as much hypocrisy as lack of knowledge of a pretty complex economic system.

When it comes to pricing Economics rules but it isn't an easy topic, the marketing mix; place, price, product, promotion comes in to play and each element bumps against the others and serves to mask (but not eliminate) the invisible hand.

And to keep it interesting, consider the place at the table .gov now occupies. In the middle 1970s when the CFP mark was aborning, the section on investment covered risk naturally, and the students had to understand the variou risks affecting markets and companies, ie management, interest rate, competitive, and so forth and last among several was...Government. As I recall the section on government risk it consisted of 'don't worry about government risk, America is where the world comes to invest because we'rfe solid.'

If I was teaching that class now I'd start the seminar by suggesting that students re-cycle the all of the sections except government because that is the only risk that matters now. A little overstated but thinks have changed.

But to the point, when I read or hear someone's commentary on business or pricing or other elements I am pretty forgiving until the argument gets to 'but...people' or the like.
It's difficult stuff and this is a forum where a guy can learn a little.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I thought we were a bunch of right-wing, laissez-faire, free-market, personal liberty, leave me alone to conduct business as I see fit types.

I guess not.

We aren't? We all aren't?

One guy is complaining. Not the whole forum. I am pretty sure that the majority of us are in fact a bunch of "free-market, personal liberty, leave me alone to conduct business as I see fit types".

And anyway his followup post just above yours seems to say that he is bitching more about capitalism not working the way we would like it to in this case. As Bama points out as well if this was a true free market and there were not a bunch of government interference maybe we could have more competition in the market.

One can be a fan of the free market and despise government interference and still be occasionally upset when the cost of something skyrockets for no apparent reason. It is like that gym in Atlanta that someone posted about the other day where cop are not allowed to be members. Do I think the guy is a piece of shit? Yeah. Do I hope his business fails? Yeah. Do I want government thugs kicking his door in and forcing him to let cops be members? Not a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Maybe less to do with greed and more to do with gaining enough capital to pay for the research which will bring another approved wonder drug to the market.

That's the business model that traditional pharmaceutical companies follow, but Valeant is known for a different strategy. They spend a very small amount of revenues on R&D, believing it to be a relatively poor investment. Instead they buy the companies that have the rights to drugs they want, cut their R&D budgets, and raise prices.

quote:

Originally posted by S600MBUSA:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Maybe less to do with greed and more to do with gaining enough capital to pay for the research which will bring another approved wonder drug to the market.

That's the business model that traditional pharmaceutical companies follow, but Valeant is known for a different strategy. They spend a very small amount of revenues on R&D, believing it to be a relatively poor investment. Instead they buy the companies that have the rights to drugs they want, cut their R&D budgets, and raise prices.

Did not know that. Interesting model.