When Katie Porter brings out the whiteboard...

[TwistedSkull]

Some say the pencil is the mighties weapon, i beg to differ, the whiteboard is.

Katie Porter delivers smack to big pharma CEO!


https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/s...566391297?s=20


Do you guys love it when CEO's get called out?

[Mihalik]

This is news to exactly nobody who has paid any attention whatsoever to the facts in the US healthcare debate over the past....fuck me...30 years now?

Whenever some insurance company or pharma goon or lackey goes on TV to claim that insulin costs as much as a mortgage payment because RD is expensive or some shit he's fucking peddling shit.

Unfortunately half the country will eat that shit up like it's gold and sacrifice their own health on the altar of capitalism...to stick it to the libs or Fidel Castro or something.

[Rasulis]

American Travelers Seek Cheaper Prescription Drugs In Mexico And Beyond

It is even cheaper in Canada.

Fenner is just one of the growing number of activists online who are discussing the great lengths they go to — sometimes literally — to afford insulin. Lija Greenseid is another. Her daughter has Type 1 diabetes.

Almost one year to the day after her daughter’s diagnosis, Greenseid and her family were visiting Quebec City, Canada, in July 2014. Her daughter’s blood sugar started spiking and Greenseid feared her insulin might have gone bad, so she went to a pharmacy. With no prescription and fearing that her daughter’s life was on the line, Greenseid was prepared to pay a fortune.

Instead the box of insulin pens that normally costs $700 in the U.S. was only around $65 or so.

“At that point I started tearing up. I could not believe how inexpensive it was and how easy it was,” Greenseid said.

“I said to [the pharmacist], ‘Do you have any idea what it’s like to get insulin in the United States? It’s just so much more expensive.’ And he turned to me and said, ‘Why would we want to make it difficult? You need insulin to live.'”

The more Greenseid traveled with her family, the more they realized how inexpensive insulin was everywhere except in the United States. In Nuremberg, Germany, she could get that $700 box of insulin pens for $73. The same box was $57 in Tel Aviv, Israel, $51 in Greece, $61 in Rome and $40 in Taiwan.

[PACOX]

American healthcare is tore up from the floor up. More news at 11.

Katie Porter is the kind of politician we need, I don't care if you like her stances or not. One who can plainly and effectively present information, exposing all the BS in the process.

[Ivanstone]

I am shocked by this.

I had no idea that this company spent $2.4b on R&D.

I always assumed that the drug companies let the government do most of the R&D and they just spent a few bucks securing and extending patents.

[Iliena]

Are the prices on this site accurate? https://www.drugs.com/

I compared the prices that the NHS pays for the medications I'm currently taking (I have Asthma) using this: http://gmmmg.nhs.uk/docs/cost_comparison_charts.pdf

The cheapest costs the NHS $3.22 (£2.27) per month, but in the US it would cost $25.83 (£18.20), one of my inhales cost's $397 (£279) per month in the US, the NHS pay's only $40 (£28) for the exact same thing! Crazy mark ups!

[postman1782]

Are the prices on this site accurate? https://www.drugs.com/

I compared the prices that the NHS pays for the medications I'm currently taking (I have Asthma) using this: http://gmmmg.nhs.uk/docs/cost_comparison_charts.pdf

The cheapest costs the NHS $3.22 (£2.27) per month, but in the US it would cost $25.83 (£18.20), one of my inhales cost's $397 (£279) per month in the US, the NHS pay's only $40 (£28) for the exact same thing! Crazy mark ups!

That is because of the pharmaceutical lobbyists, and them thinking that everyone has insurance and whatnot. Instead of like your country where they have laws that limits price gouging.

If you go to the hospital, in the US, for just Aspirin or Tylenol, they charge you $40 for 2 pills. You can get like 10 bottles of Tylenol for that price.

[Edge-]

But that's a fault with healthcare providers, not with Pharma.

It's a problem with both. Drug companies don't need to sell to hospitals at the costs they do and often use those to make up for reduced profits when the drugs are prescribed through Medicare etc. Porters video does a pretty good job of showing where a majority of pharma money is going, while pointing out how small their R&D budget is in comparison. R&D budgets that are often subsidized by taxpayers to begin with, further reducing the actual costs to the company.

[postman1782]

But that's a fault with healthcare providers, not with Pharma.

It is both.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a problem with both. Drug companies don't need to sell to hospitals at the costs they do and often use those to make up for reduced profits when the drugs are prescribed through Medicare etc. Porters video does a pretty good job of showing where a majority of pharma money is going, while pointing out how small their R&D budget is in comparison. R&D budgets that are often subsidized by taxpayers to begin with, further reducing the actual costs to the company.

Yep, at the same time, they are making BILLIONS from markup. Take for example, a vial of insulin costs $2.25-$3.50 dollars to make. Depending on brand and for what diabetes, but the average cost for that same vial, yet, it costs an average diabetic literally thousands per month for just their supplies. Some even rationing it and not taking proper doses because they can't afford it.

[bladeXcrasher]

Are the prices on this site accurate? https://www.drugs.com/

I compared the prices that the NHS pays for the medications I'm currently taking (I have Asthma) using this: http://gmmmg.nhs.uk/docs/cost_comparison_charts.pdf

The cheapest costs the NHS $3.22 (£2.27) per month, but in the US it would cost $25.83 (£18.20), one of my inhales cost's $397 (£279) per month in the US, the NHS pay's only $40 (£28) for the exact same thing! Crazy mark ups!

In America, we are told that's the price of freedom.

[Slant]

It's a problem with both. Drug companies don't need to sell to hospitals at the costs they do and often use those to make up for reduced profits when the drugs are prescribed through Medicare etc. Porters video does a pretty good job of showing where a majority of pharma money is going, while pointing out how small their R&D budget is in comparison. R&D budgets that are often subsidized by taxpayers to begin with, further reducing the actual costs to the company.

Here's an example from another business field... so European publishers charge a lot of money for their scientific journals. A LOT. So much in fact, that Universities can't afford those publications to buy for their libraries. Which is ironic, because their own professors wrote the articles and did the research that went into those papers. And that research is subsidized or completely outright funded by the state or the EU.

So, the EU recognised the double tapping going on in the publishing industry in that not only do they not pay for the research, they get to charge a premium for the published results. The EU has implemented a law that basically says any research funded with EU money has to be accessible free of charge, otherwise the EU would cut funding completely.

That solved the problem, if you ever see "open access" on scientific journals, this is where that's coming from.

Now, to my point: This feels like a similar situation. When the US Government sponsors or subsidizes money for R&D of medical drugs, how in the world can anyone in their right mind think that the drug companies get to charge anything but cost of manufacturing for it? Turbo capitalism at its best. Have the state pay parts of your research, you get the patent and then you have a monopoly. It's like a money printing machine. That needs to stop.

It's only compounded by what must be one of the most unforgiving and corrupt medical healthcare systems in Western industry nations.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So, little known fact here--drug companies do not sell directly to hospitals in all but the rarest of cases. Overwhelmingly, drug companies market to third party sellers and insurance agencies, and those sellers are the ones who aggressively inflate drug costs because they know the hospitals will pay it. A company like AbbVie, for example, might have $8 in infastructure, R&D, and manufacturing costs associated with every bottle of a drug. They'll then market that drug to suppliers for $15 a bottle and invest half of the profit into executive bonuses and the other half into making other drugs that are less profitable but critically necessary for people's survival (AbbVie donates over $1 bil in life-saving drugs each year that are not profitable and which are subsidized by increased costs on more marketable drugs). The supplier then markets it *obstensibly on behalf of* AbbVie to a hospital for $25. And then the hospital charges $50 to their patient to cover overhead costs, insurance BS, and legal fees that stem from patient noncompliance.

It's true that some Pharma companies do wildly inflate the costs associated with their drug manufacturing--certainly a lot of CEO's have a vested interest in lining shareholders' pockets (and their own) more than they do indulging in compassionate practices. But the vast majority don't price gouge to the degree that Katie Porter implies. For every Martin Shkreli charging 600% increased fees on a whim, there's a half dozen pharmas that only increase prices incremently.

Ultimately, the entire thing is an incredibly complex system of inefficient government regulation, capitalistic pharameceutical companies, skyrocketing patent costs, R&D/manufacturing overhead, greedy middle-men distributors, corrupt insurance agencies and hospitals that are either desperately trying to stay afloat or which were bought out by megacorps who don't care if you live or die so long as they turn a profit. It's not as black-and-white as a performative agent like Katie Porter wants to make it out to be.

*When I say obstensibly on behalf of, I mean that while Pharma companies do directly contract with many third party suppliers, they have virtually no control over the rates those suppliers charge. It's just easier (and cheaper) for Pharma companies to deal with 5 or 6 major distributors than with thousands of individual hospitals.

So you're saying that big pharma companies sell their drugs directly to other countries' hospitals and pharmacies and cut out the middle man? Because that $8 bottle of drugs would cost about 25-50 cents in countries like Canada and Mexico.

I was prescribed a life-saving drug. Each bottle is $700 from US pharmacies. There is no generic. I look outside the US, the same bottle of drugs is $27 in Canada.

It's not just the middle man, it's not just hospitals, it's not just pharma, it's every single step in the ladder, and people are willing to take it in the ass and sacrifice their firstborn (sometimes literally) at the altar of capitalism. Another symptom of late stage capitalism.

[Poopymonster]

So you're saying that big pharma companies sell their drugs directly to other countries' hospitals and pharmacies and cut out the middle man? Because that $8 bottle of drugs would cost about 25-50 cents in countries like Canada and Mexico.

I was prescribed a life-saving drug. Each bottle is $700 from US pharmacies. There is no generic. I look outside the US, the same bottle of drugs is $27 in Canada.

It's not just the middle man, it's not just hospitals, it's not just pharma, it's every single step in the ladder, and people are willing to take it in the ass and sacrifice their firstborn (sometimes literally) at the altar of capitalism. Another symptom of late stage capitalism.

This pleases Adam Smith.

[Endus]

So you're saying that big pharma companies sell their drugs directly to other countries' hospitals and pharmacies and cut out the middle man? Because that $8 bottle of drugs would cost about 25-50 cents in countries like Canada and Mexico.

I was prescribed a life-saving drug. Each bottle is $700 from US pharmacies. There is no generic. I look outside the US, the same bottle of drugs is $27 in Canada.

It's not just the middle man, it's not just hospitals, it's not just pharma, it's every single step in the ladder, and people are willing to take it in the ass and sacrifice their firstborn (sometimes literally) at the altar of capitalism. Another symptom of late stage capitalism.

Frankly, I'm also at the point where if some pharmacorp is jacking prices up 10,000% for life-saving medication like vaccines or insulin or whatever, the appropriate solution by any government should be to void their patents locally and enable production by any facility who wants to. Want to retain your patent? Stay within some established international standard for profit generation; if you are found to have exceeded it, your patent can be considered void.

Ideally, if you get someone like that Shreki shitbird in the US jacking up prices, the solution is to just let other labs produce the same product without the massive markup and destroying their business.

[Mihalik]

This pleases Adam Smith.

Funny enough, Adam Smith warned repeatedly of the dangers of price gouging and the tendency of businessmen or corporations to manipulate the market to their own benefit and against the public good.

Smith wrote a bit more than just the Wealth of Nations (he discussed these issues in it too), but he wrote more extensively on it in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Classical economists like Smith were way more weary of the negative inclinations of capitalism than people imagine it.

Smith is probably turning in his grave seeing the mess we made of capitalism.

[Endus]

Funny enough, Adam Smith warned repeatedly of the dangers of price gouging and the tendency of businessmen or corporations to manipulate the market to their own benefit and against the public good.

Smith wrote a bit more than just the Wealth of Nations (he discussed these issues in it too), but he wrote more extensively on it in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Classical economists like Smith were way more weary of the negative inclinations of capitalism than people imagine it.

Smith is probably turning in his grave seeing the mess we made of capitalism.

Honestly, if Adam Smith was transported forward to today and taught about how economic theory's shifted, he'd probably classify himself as a democratic market socialist rather than a "capitalist" in the modern sense.

[Twdft]

Cool. Who sets the "international standard?" Who enforces it? Also...voiding the patent doesn't do what you think it does. Pharma companies with enough resources can and will pay other, smaller companies with competing products/patents to sell their manufacturing rights off to the larger company, which circumvents the revocation of a patent. And anti-trust (even if it were ever enforced, which it never is) wouldn't apply to that since it's not a direct buyout of the smaller company--it's indirect horizontal integration, not vertical integration. This is nowhere near as simple as you think it is.

It's actually quite simple, just make laws limiting prices and markup.

[Twdft]

Ok, sure. Limit pricing and markup. Guess what happens then? Those companies no longer invest in R&D for less profitable drugs--many of which are critical for treating rare but dangerous conditions/diseases. As I mentioned in an earlier post, markup helps to subsidize drugs that would otherwise never be produced due to their R&D generating a net profit loss for pharmeceutical companies (a result of their much smaller demand).

It literally works in Germany. That fairy tale about companies stopping to invest is just that, a fairy tale. Just the same as "don't tax them or they go abroad".

[Twdft]

Incidentally, I can't think of any major international pharmeceutical companies which call Germany home. If there are any, please enlighten me, it might be interesting to do a comparative analysis!

Bayer would be an example.

[Mihalik]

Ok, sure. Limit pricing and markup. Guess what happens then? Those companies no longer invest in R&D for less profitable drugs--many of which are critical for treating rare but dangerous conditions/diseases.

See 2nd post in this very thread. It applies to you.

The price of pharmaceuticals and RD has exactly FUCK ALL to do with each other.

Bulk of the pure theoretical research is already publicly funded. Considering how little pharmaceutical companies actually spend on RD and the government literally could give them a full tax write off to cover the clinical trials component and it wouldn't even put a dent in the tax revenue.

Stop parroting that old talking point, it's bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Incidentally, I can't think of any major international pharmeceutical companies which call Germany home. If there are any, please enlighten me, it might be interesting to do a comparative analysis!

Bayer would be an example.

Bayer, Merck and Boehringer Ingelheim (this last one actually has bigger sales than Merck, it's just less know as they do a lot of those immunology, cancer, lung disease and hepatitis treatments that are highly specific, don't really sell Aspirin in and whatnot.)

On top of that the entire German pharmaceutical industry is choke full of medium sized companies doing R&D for larger pharma corps like Sandoz, Bayern, Pfizer etc.

You know, like Biontech.