EpiPen 400% Price Hike - CEO received 671% raise.

[BannedForViews]

And that is still not the root of the problem, but sure.

then what do you think the problem is?

edit: let me guess.

To somebody without morals, sure.Why does it matter?

Thats one way of putting that you think its okay to fuck over the poor.
Can't afford life saving medicine? Well, tough shit!

If you're the only person who can provide life saving medication, ... or its unethical to hike the price with an insane amount just so she can earn more money for itself.

Okay, I don't care what you think about this topic anymore. You are clearly ignoring the root cause for WHY the price hike was allowed to exist to focus on your nebulous term for morality.

lets be clear. I haven't heard it reported that there are people going without epipens, only that they are being forced to spend a lot more than they want to for them. Now I am not saying that this is right, but there is no reason others have to share you opinion on this topic. Your entire argument is emotionally charged, as most of these types of arguments are, so really there is no point in discussing it with you because no amount of facts or logic can prevail over your belief that the ONLY problem is that the people who make EpiPens are greedy and should be forcibly stopped.

For your information though, if the FDA were not keeping competetors from entering the market, natural competition would drive the price of these things down faster than you can blink, and there would no longer be any concern for the morals of the manufacturers. But CWAPITAWISM IS BWAAAAAD!!!

[Tinykong]

So it can be fixed, like I said.

That's like saying we can "fix" campaign finance reform or "fix" immigration.

Sure, it's possible. It probably won't ever happen.

[DSRilk]

I agree. Hand sanitizers and the overuse of them are actually making people sicker. Same thing now with Gluten. actual gluten intolerance or cilacs disease is not really common. But you have people refusing to let their kids eat anything with Gluton just in case. But by God they will gorge themselves on refined sugar

- - - Updated - - -


And how many of these medical breakthroughs and Medicines would we have today if there was no money to be made? Profits do drive progress and innovation

Plenty of scientists and inventors do it for the joy of creation, whether you're talking about Salk refusing to patent his discoveries or Tesla putting the money he made back into more research. On the other hand, you have the pharma industry doing things like blocking research into new antibiotics because they can make more money by keeping the status quo. It works both ways, but from what I've seen, most creative people creating because they are driven to, not because they think they'll make major bank.

[zEmini]

Well it is the chemical (adrenaline?) that expires right? Maybe they need too just rebuy the refill - which fits back into a epipen machine - and keep the mechanical part of it. Although I don't know how they work ... so pardon my ignorance.

[Kantalope]

Plenty of scientists and inventors do it for the joy of creation, whether you're talking about Salk refusing to patent his discoveries or Tesla putting the money he made back into more research. On the other hand, you have the pharma industry doing things like blocking research into new antibiotics because they can make more money by keeping the status quo. It works both ways, but from what I've seen, most creative people creating because they are driven to, not because they think they'll make major bank.

The pharmaceutical industry runs on profits. If you remove the potential of profit from the equation, why would people dump millions to billions of dollars into designing new drugs? Designing a working drug is basically winning the lottery by buying as many different tickets as you can.

I'm not saying the EpiPen situation is a good example of this, the API is not patented, and they've had sole ownership of the injector patent for too long. Shkrelli's stint is another awful example, where it's basically a monopoly by owning the only FDA approval despite the API not being patented. Generics need to be more easily attained after API patent expires, but if you remove profit from the pharma industry, you won't see new drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it is the chemical (adrenaline?) that expires right? Maybe they need too just rebuy the refill - which fits back into a epipen machine - and keep the mechanical part of it. Although I don't know how they work ... so pardon my ignorance.

Epinephrine. It expires much quicker than many drugs, and it's not really something like tylenol where if it's still 75% effective it'll be okay. You need the full dose. It's not possible to refill it (I mean, it might be if you really looked into it, but it's probably not something you'd want to tamper with and risk a misfire).

[DSRilk]

then what do you think the problem is?

edit: let me guess.







Okay, I don't care what you think about this topic anymore. You are clearly ignoring the root cause for WHY the price hike was allowed to exist to focus on your nebulous term for morality.

lets be clear. I haven't heard it reported that there are people going without epipens, only that they are being forced to spend a lot more than they want to for them. Now I am not saying that this is right, but there is no reason others have to share you opinion on this topic. Your entire argument is emotionally charged, as most of these types of arguments are, so really there is no point in discussing it with you because no amount of facts or logic can prevail over your belief that the ONLY problem is that the people who make EpiPens are greedy and should be forcibly stopped.

For your information though, if the FDA were not keeping competetors from entering the market, natural competition would drive the price of these things down faster than you can blink, and there would no longer be any concern for the morals of the manufacturers. But CWAPITAWISM IS BWAAAAAD!!!

The lack of regulation is the only reason why "the price hike was allowed to exist." If we assume for a moment that the few alternatives the FDA turned down got through, there are still several other road blocks - including the patent on the injector, which the FDA has nothing to do with, and the fact that the new companies would have to make deals with the insurance companies. There actually were alternatives that made it past the FDA, but the insurance companies that are so tightly bound with the pharma industry made it virtually impossible for them to succeed. The only way around it is regulation at several levels. Eliminating potential corruption in the FDA is only one small part of the puzzle.

- - - Updated - - -

The pharmaceutical industry runs on profits. If you remove the potential of profit from the equation, why would people dump millions to billions of dollars into designing new drugs? Designing a working drug is basically winning the lottery by buying as many different tickets as you can.

I'm not saying the EpiPen situation is a good example of this, the API is not patented, and they've had sole ownership of the injector patent for too long. Shkrelli's stint is another awful example, where it's basically a monopoly by owning the only FDA approval despite the API not being patented. Generics need to be more easily attained after API patent expires, but if you remove profit from the pharma industry, you won't see new drugs.

New drugs and treatments are discovered outside of pharmaceutical companies all the time. It would be even more so if we funded university research better. Additionally, a lot of the "new drugs" that get "discovered" by the industry are rehashes and remixes of existing stuff solely to hold on to patents. When it's profit driven, as you say, which is more likely to happen: the company spends crap tons of money on better drugs or the company retools their existing formula with far less work so they can get a new patent?

In the end, the people who actually do the research; the people who have the drive, knowledge, and creativity to come up with new things... they end up working in corporations because it allows them to focus on the creation - what they love. The money mostly goes to the ownership, not the grunts on the trenches. You really think scientists doing cancer research would work less hard or be less creative if being supported by government funds instead of private funds? With directions like "find solutions" vs "find a solution that maximizes profits under the following conditions?"

[BannedForViews]

The lack of regulation is the only reason why "the price hike was allowed to exist." If we assume for a moment that the few alternatives the FDA turned down got through, there are still several other road blocks - including the patent on the injector, which the FDA has nothing to do with, and the fact that the new companies would have to make deals with the insurance companies. There actually were alternatives that made it past the FDA, but the insurance companies that are so tightly bound with the pharma industry made it virtually impossible for them to succeed. The only way around it is regulation at several levels. Eliminating potential corruption in the FDA is only one small part of the puzzle.

I already covered that patents aren't an issue here, but to your other point, are you trying to argue that insurance companies, whose goal is to provide the most cost effective care possible, are at the same time unwilling to pay for the overprice epipens, but also unwilling to allow cheaper competitors products to be covered under their plans? It's not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I'd have to see it to believe it, because the only way this could make sense is if there is some giant conspiracy to monopolize the price of epipens and screw over the individual specifically, in this very niche market.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...ut-040615.html

Prior Authorization is a very real way in which insurance companies try to determine if there is an actual need for a name brand drug when i generic exists. They do it all the time. It doesn't mean they won't authorize the name brand, but it does mean they try to make sure it is necessary and an alternative isn't just as good. Why would they not want alternatives to overpriced epipens?

[Kantalope]

New drugs and treatments are discovered outside of pharmaceutical companies all the time. It would be even more so if we funded university research better. Additionally, a lot of the "new drugs" that get "discovered" by the industry are rehashes and remixes of existing stuff solely to hold on to patents. When it's profit driven, as you say, which is more likely to happen: the company spends crap tons of money on better drugs or the company retools their existing formula with far less work so they can get a new patent?

In the end, the people who actually do the research; the people who have the drive, knowledge, and creativity to come up with new things... they end up working in corporations because it allows them to focus on the creation - what they love. The money mostly goes to the ownership, not the grunts on the trenches. You really think scientists doing cancer research would work less hard or be less creative if being supported by government funds instead of private funds? With directions like "find solutions" vs "find a solution that maximizes profits under the following conditions?"

Universities never develop and push drugs to market, and better funding won't help that. The cost of taking a drug candidate and pushing it through all the clinical trials is too high. In fact, most smaller companies that develop drugs sell their hit compounds to larger companies that can afford to run the trials and eat the loss when the API fails in phase 3 clinicals.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, retooling the existing formula. New molecular scaffolds are being generated and tested all the time. I sit through synthesis presentations of drug development regularly. Sure, sometimes taking an existing compound and altering it be more effective works (and what my undergraduate research focused on), but that's far from the majority of drugs.

[breadisfunny]

It would be funny if they just dropped the Pen from the market and quit selling it. Liberal brains would explode. It's important to note that Mylan Pharmaceuticals is also a big Clinton Fraudation donor as well.

yeah because dead people are just hilarious. i wonder if you find the other events such as pearl harbor hilarious or the katrina flood?

[Zenotetsuken]

I would still have a child. Part of the reason the good parts of my genes outweigh the chance of ALS. Even with a pre-disposition for ALS my genes are still more valuable than yours, for example, because I'm not a sociopath.

Funny thing is, people can get by if they help each other. We wandered off the African Plains millennia ago not because of competition amongst ourselves but because of our ability to co-operate better than the other animals out there.

You should keep in mind the eugenics thing you preach has largely been ignored and here we are in the 21st century with our extra long life spans and our fancy pants technology. Hell, we're almost getting to the point where we can ignore and even appreciate our differences.

Yeah, clearly someone with an opinion that is different from your own is Hitler and a sociopath. Grow up friend, I haven't said anything offensive, yet you continue to call me names, simply because I don't view things the same as you.
It is very telling that you would willingly put someone through something as awful as ALS, for your own selfish reasons.
If/when that child got ALS, would you just simply go "Not MY fault."? Oh yeah, that's right, you wouldn't, because the average life expectancy of someone with ALS is 5 years from the diagnosis, so you wouldn't likely even see them have to grow up and suffer through the same thing as yourself, so as long as you don't see it, your conscience is clear right?

- - - Updated - - -

Unless that is actually proven, we have no reason to stop treating people.

But we AREN'T treating people, we try to manage the negatives. Treatment would imply that there is a point in which it will be "treated", but there is no fixing hereditary disorders, there is simply managing them.
If I have a hereditary disease, and I have 2 kids, even if only 1 of them is affected, and they each have 2 kids, those 4 kids could still ALL be affected. The more it spreads, the more likely it will become. At some point down the line, this one trait will be passed along through so many bloodlines that when they start to meet with other people who have the genetic trait, the risk will explode.
We haven't seen it explode yet, because we are still in the early stages. We have however seen an exponential increase over the past couple of generations that people have passed on the genes.




Yeah, a 50% increase over ~15 years clearly means nothing.

[DSRilk]

if you remove profit from the pharma industry, you won't see new drugs

We saw new drugs before the industry arose, and we'd see more after.

- - - Updated - - -

but to your other point, are you trying to argue that insurance companies, whose goal is to provide the most cost effective care possible, are at the same time unwilling to pay for the overprice epipens, but also unwilling to allow cheaper competitors products to be covered under their plans?

I'm arguing that an insurance company's goal is NOT to provide the most cost effective care possible, it's to make the most money possible. And from my experience (personal, anecdotal, and researched) with corporations in general, both as a consumer and part of the daily grind - especially with insurance companies, they really couldn't care less about helping anyone unless doing so would help their bottom line. I'm saying yes, that while I'm not a conspiracy theorist in pretty much any other regard, when it comes to corporate collusion, I'd put good money on insurance companies and big pharma working together to scratch each others' backs. The only ones worse are the cable companies, but there we have definitive proof of wrongdoing, but the stakes aren't nearly as high.

[Ivanstone]

Yeah, clearly someone with an opinion that is different from your own is Hitler and a sociopath. Grow up friend, I haven't said anything offensive, yet you continue to call me names, simply because I don't view things the same as you.

Someone having a difference of opinion with me is not a sociopath. Someone who is advocating that only certain people are allowed to have children on the other hand? Especially if that person has a limited understanding of genetics?

I have Diabetes. Should I not have kids?
I've had two immediate family members die of cancer. Do I myself have a predisposition for it?
For all I know I'm carrying genes that may lead to ALS. Better get myself screened.

Each and everyone of us is a ticking time genetic bomb. Except you of course.

Did it ever occur to you during your little allergy rant that the biggest reason that allergies are much more common is because we have the opportunity for a varied diet and advanced medical testing that previous generations did not?

[breadisfunny]

Yeah, clearly someone with an opinion that is different from your own is Hitler and a sociopath. Grow up friend, I haven't said anything offensive, yet you continue to call me names, simply because I don't view things the same as you.
It is very telling that you would willingly put someone through something as awful as ALS, for your own selfish reasons.
If/when that child got ALS, would you just simply go "Not MY fault."? Oh yeah, that's right, you wouldn't, because the average life expectancy of someone with ALS is 5 years from the diagnosis, so you wouldn't likely even see them have to grow up and suffer through the same thing as yourself, so as long as you don't see it, your conscience is clear right?

- - - Updated - - -



But we AREN'T treating people, we try to manage the negatives. Treatment would imply that there is a point in which it will be "treated", but there is no fixing hereditary disorders, there is simply managing them.
If I have a hereditary disease, and I have 2 kids, even if only 1 of them is affected, and they each have 2 kids, those 4 kids could still ALL be affected. The more it spreads, the more likely it will become. At some point down the line, this one trait will be passed along through so many bloodlines that when they start to meet with other people who have the genetic trait, the risk will explode.
We haven't seen it explode yet, because we are still in the early stages. We have however seen an exponential increase over the past couple of generations that people have passed on the genes.




Yeah, a 50% increase over ~15 years clearly means nothing.

yes because reenacting the t-4 program is clearly a really great idea.
next your gonna start saying eugenics is a valid school of thought that just needs more funding.....

[jdbond592]

Capitalism at work. Nothing to see here.

[JohnBrown1917]

But we AREN'T treating people, we try to manage the negatives. Treatment would imply that there is a point in which it will be "treated", but there is no fixing hereditary disorders, there is simply managing them. .

Which does not change my point, they do not deserve to die.

[Deleted]

I can still see them saying "This is the price, if you don't like, don't buy it."

It doesn't work like that.
Under a single payer system, they are cool with saying 'No'.
They want the money more than the state needs the drugs.

[Poopymonster]

The problem isn't people having shitty defects, the problem is people having destructive defects that are hereditary.

Here you go, here's a question for you: If YOU had ALS, and it actually WAS hereditary, would you decide to bring a child into the world, knowing that if your child had to suffer through ALS, it would be because you decided that your feelings mattered more than the actual life of your child?
Or
Would you instead take a realistic look at the situation, and decide that the risk of forcing ALS on someone, especially someone that you care about, is far more twisted than just not having that child in the first place?

In all reality, either you had the child already, or when you were diagnosed, all the meds they start you on, your death most likely in 2-4 years, a child is the last thing on your mind.

[stabetha]

It would be funny if they just dropped the Pen from the market and quit selling it. Liberal brains would explode. It's important to note that Mylan Pharmaceuticals is also a big Clinton Fraudation donor as well.

even better, the CEO of Mylan which manufactures EpiPens is the daughter of a democrat senator.

- - - Updated - - -

The lack of regulation is the only reason why "the price hike was allowed to exist." If we assume for a moment that the few alternatives the FDA turned down got through, there are still several other road blocks - including the patent on the injector, which the FDA has nothing to do with, and the fact that the new companies would have to make deals with the insurance companies. There actually were alternatives that made it past the FDA, but the insurance companies that are so tightly bound with the pharma industry made it virtually impossible for them to succeed. The only way around it is regulation at several levels. Eliminating potential corruption in the FDA is only one small part of the puzzle.

- - - Updated - - -



New drugs and treatments are discovered outside of pharmaceutical companies all the time. It would be even more so if we funded university research better. Additionally, a lot of the "new drugs" that get "discovered" by the industry are rehashes and remixes of existing stuff solely to hold on to patents. When it's profit driven, as you say, which is more likely to happen: the company spends crap tons of money on better drugs or the company retools their existing formula with far less work so they can get a new patent?

In the end, the people who actually do the research; the people who have the drive, knowledge, and creativity to come up with new things... they end up working in corporations because it allows them to focus on the creation - what they love. The money mostly goes to the ownership, not the grunts on the trenches. You really think scientists doing cancer research would work less hard or be less creative if being supported by government funds instead of private funds? With directions like "find solutions" vs "find a solution that maximizes profits under the following conditions?"

no the money goes towards the $2.6 billion it takes to bring a drug to market, yeah more regulations sounds like a great idea /s. a better solution would be to make some of these other countries that pay little more then the cost of manufactureing to pony up and "pay their fair share".

[Lenonis]

even better, the CEO of Mylan which manufactures EpiPens is the daughter of a democrat senator.

The need to make everything political is weird. Greed runs across all political parties.

But she must make a lousy democrat then because she just took a page from the conservative free market playbook.

[Fincayra]

The need to make everything political is weird. Greed runs across all political parties.

But she must make a lousy democrat then because she just took a page from the conservative free market playbook.

The sad thing, is that it IS all political. These people, from both sides of the aisle, are the ones running EVERYTHING in this country. Their goal is to get in there and make as many of their friends as rich as possible without getting caught doing it. You say "conservative free market" like the democrats aren't also profiting from it too. Epipen's price was increased because they are the only ones on the market. They are the only ones on the market because the FDA won't approve anyone else to manufacture it. The usual need to tag this all on one person is going to become very interesting in the coming months. Will daddy throw his daughter under the bus? Stay tuned to find out!