Dan T. Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Remember the guy who bought the drug company that was the only source of Daraprim, a drug on the market for 62 years used by cancer patients, AIDS patients, and pregnant women, so that he could jack up the price from $13.50 to $750 a tablet? His name is Martin Shkreli. The 32 year old former hedge fund manager bought Turing Pharmeceuticals for $55 million with the intent to rake in big bucks by obscenely raising the price of the sole-source drug. After a huge public relations backlash, Shkreli said he would lower the price - but he hasn't. Now another pharmaceutical company out of San Diego has announced they will also produce the drug and sell it - for ONE DOLLAR a dose. San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals mixes approved drug ingredients to fill individual patient prescriptions. They announced they will sell a 100 pill bottle of Daraprim for $99. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c1264e78de574d869519f169d5a1a878/drug-company-offers-cheap-version-costly-turing-drug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 That guy IS a dickwad. **** him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The $1 drug has to jump through some hoops to circumvent the FDA, since it's not going through the usual approval process. Hopefully not too many, and it can be distributed widely enough to help (while also being safe), so it's not quite a total solution, but hopefully everyone can work together, and shove a big fat screw you right up Shkreli's smug ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I could not figure out how that dude was able to do that for a generic. Once a patent has run out, anybody can produce a drug - only the marketing name stays protected. It was only a matter of time before somebody stepped in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Right, if he had raised the price incrementally then maybe no one would have noticed. But he killed his golden goose right away. Who knows still may be the golden goose, since this is real life and dirt ball bad guys get to win more than we like. I assume no one had gotten into the game of making that specific drug because it sold for so little. Getting INTO manufacturing a drug from the cold can't be cheap. All he did was invite competition into a weak monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 So, to focus on a different aspect: Why didn't they offer this drug for $1/dose before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 So, to focus on a different aspect: Why didn't they offer this drug for $1/dose before? It sounds good, but in reality drug companies spend billions of dollars on R&D. More to get drugs through FDA. If they get one that is very popular, they are going to charge for it to get that money back. Also, the mix of insurance and Medicare means that most folks pay a portion of the cost with the rest coming from insurance - hence the ability to charge large sums of money for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Also, the mix of insurance and Medicare which means We The People end up footing part of that cost, and we should be even more outraged at this price gouging. It's not capitalism, it's fleecing the American taxpayers. Maybe I'm drawing a distinction where there isn't any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Good. Now all we need is him to have a snorkeling accident. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Good. Now all we need is him to have a snorkeling accident. ~Bang Nah...more of a public takedown like illegal trading, or money laundering, or illegal hunting of an animal...something g else that the public can rally behind and embarrass this asshole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 which means We The People end up footing part of that cost, and we should be even more outraged at this price gouging. It's not capitalism, it's fleecing the American taxpayers. Maybe I'm drawing a distinction where there isn't any. Not to get too far away from the original premise, but like other areas, if there is money that can only be spent in that area (medicare, student loans, etc), the prices will always go up to consume that money. As for this guy, I can't get too upset with him as he didn't do anything illegal. Was it a dick-head move, certainly, but not like the blatant thievery that goes on at many places. I also get a great laugh when another company got back over on him and cut the price, making his investment worthless. Karma babe, it's a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 What this guy did may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean its moral. Basically he may have indirectly caused harm and death to many people. I wish I could open my own manufacturing plant and sell it for $1 a bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 It sounds good, but in reality drug companies spend billions of dollars on R&D. More to get drugs through FDA. If they get one that is very popular, they are going to charge for it to get that money back. Also, the mix of insurance and Medicare means that most folks pay a portion of the cost with the rest coming from insurance - hence the ability to charge large sums of money for them. Right. It took this jackass to get someone to do it, but obviously it could be done. Which tells me it could be done in more cases, but isn't... because no one's made a big stink over the prices? or, as others have suggested, they've just slowly increased prices over time as to not outrage anyone? ie: other people are price gouging us but not enough, or not fast enough, to cause internet outrage. At the end of the day this jackass everyone hates has essentially caused a $13/dose medication to be reduced to $1/dose. Maybe we need more people like him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Right. It took this jackass to get someone to do it, but obviously it could be done. Which tells me it could be done in more cases, but isn't... because no one's made a big stink over the prices? or, as others have suggested, they've just slowly increased prices over time as to not outrage anyone? ie: other people are price gouging us but not enough, or not fast enough, to cause internet outrage. At the end of the day this jackass everyone hates has essentially caused a $13/dose medication to be reduced to $1/dose. Maybe we need more people like him? It should be pointed out that since this is a special formulation company and not a (larger) mass producing company, they don't have the same FDA regulations so they don't have the same associated costs and as a result have lower over head. I don't know if the difference is $13 vs. $1 difference. The other thing is in general prices are set by supply and demand. Not by production costs. There is clearly a sweet spot in terms of pricing generics with respect to the company that is making them is making good money, but they aren't charging so much that it is going to encourage the competition to go through the FDA approval process. For various reasons (partly associated with the fact that this guy was going to control supply, which would make it harder for companies get their drug through the FDA approval process), this guy thought that sweet spot was much higher than most companies in similar situations. The curious question is how long is the FDA going to allow this company to do this. In most cases, these things aren't allowed to continue indefinitely making the same medicine. This sort of thing is generally reserved for one off cases where there might be a need for a few months because the company that normally produces the drug can't keep up with demand or you have some sort very small population that for medical reasons can't take the thing that has actually passes FDA regulations. I don't think there is a case where the FDA has allowed this to happen where there was enough of an FDA regulated drug and the people using the non-approved drug/process didn't have a medical reason they couldn't use the FDA regulated drug. I'd rather see this spark a review of the FDA approval process with respect to generic, the associated costs, and hurdles rather than create this odd situation of having a special formulations company circumvent the normal (legal) process because of this guys actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I could not figure out how that dude was able to do that for a generic. Once a patent has run out, anybody can produce a drug - only the marketing name stays protected. It was only a matter of time before somebody stepped in. As I understand it, it has to do with a flaw in the safety process. If you are going to produce a generic drug you have to prove that it is chemically identical to the original drug so that you don't have to jump through the same hoops as a new drug does. To prove that you need access to the chemical process for the original drug. That mean Shkreli had to give you access. He wouldn't do that. Because he's scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 So we can say "dickwad" but we can't say "****pit"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 So we can say "dickwad" but we can't say "****pit"? I'm pretty sure you can say slutpit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I'm pretty sure you can say slutpit.clearly the staff here are sexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I'm pretty sure you can say slutpit. You can also say dickpit. Clearly, they are over sensitive about the 9/11 attacks here. Can't have anyone talking about the piloting area of airplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 You can also say dickpit. Clearly, they are over sensitive about the 9/11 attacks here. Can't have anyone talking about the piloting area of airplanes. And don't forget the grudge they hold against poor Steve A****er. I mean sure, maybe being called the "Smiling Assassin" is asking for some hate, but it seems a bit much, ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 If there really is a God He'd see to it that this doiuchebag gets AIDS or the form of cancer that this drug can treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 And don't forget the grudge they hold against poor Steve A****er. I mean sure, maybe being called the "Smiling Assassin" is asking for some hate, but it seems a bit much, ya know? Or Joe ****er? They don't want you to have a little help from your friends or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 If there really is a God He'd see to it that this doiuchebag gets AIDS or the form of cancer that this drug can treat. He's one rich SOB, so he'll be able to afford it. How about a form it WON'T treat? That's karma. You get what you give. (I'm usually not that dark, but damn...this is one of the "topics" that brings out the worst in many folks I've spoken to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 This drug has been out a looong time. That's part of why it was so cheap before the takeover. I wonder if a lot of generic companies had the recipe, but it just wasn't worth the bang to their buck to produce it. That may be why they were able to produce it so quickly (and cheaply.) Mind you, this pricing certainly seems to be a great PR move for the generic maker as well a big ole f you to the hedge hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Btw, Viagra has overstayed it's welcome patent. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.