Turing Pharmaceuticals is price gouging a critical drug for HIV/immunocompromised

[unbound]

Welcome to corporations with little to no regulation. This is the libertarian dream come true, and happens in multiple areas. I'm serious...this will happen even more if libertarians get their way. Competition does not exist in all areas, and with the US' broken patent system, these things are happening with increasing frequency.

I've even seen a generic drug get bought out, and as a sole manufacturer, they raise the rate so much that insurance companies have been starting to pay for the name-brand drug instead because it is cheaper.

In regards to the morality of this. Welcome to corporations. Their job is to make as much profit as possible. I have an MBA from a top 100 school, and I was taught in no uncertain terms that my job is to make sure the shareholders get as much money as they can...everything else is secondary. This is why we have regulations, because the corporations have no reason to behave any better.

[Acidbaron]

Big pharma exploiting people? nooooooooooo.

Just like you have them constantly trying to shut down Indian generics, which are made of the same formulas but far, far cheaper.
there is this guy who wrote a book about how his lab kept getting constant requests to tests Indian generics, constantly, and constantly, they all passed the tests and were described as "surprisingly high quality" , but pharma keeps financing it, so that if they ever get a bad batch, they can use it as argument to fuss about in international courts.

Really sounds like the opposite world over there, here doctors have to prescribe the cheapest brand and are actively encouraged to do so.

[Ungeir]

Debatable. Intellectual Property is one of the purest forms of Capital, and Capitalism values the right to property extremely highly.

There are many forms of capitalism and some of these do not even recognize the existence of intellectual property. Whether the right of exclusivity to sell a specific molecule can even be categorized as intellectual property is highly debatable. The last part of your statement is true - but it depends on the actual agreement on whether a patent constitutes property. I do not think it is a property - it is a privilege, and as such an intervention in free trade and free market. Some forms of capitalism happily have this kind of government intervention, but the ones usually vilified as the "purest forms of capitalism" (and essentially just theoretical constructions anyway), anarchocapitalism and laissez-faire capitalism, do not include government enforced monopolies on inventions and ideas.

ANY property is a societal construct.

The concept of property is a social construct, of course, but the acceptance of physical property and the rejection of intellectual property is a perfectly legitimate point of view. Physical property and our right to retain it is a lot closer to our basic nature than the concept of "you may not sing the song I wrote, because it belongs to me" or "you may not light a idea, because it was my idea". Violating the former involves physical violence and/or territorial invasion, the second involves hurting someone's feelings.

Now I am not an anarcho-libertarian - I do not think that ideology makes any sense, but the idea of property rights deriving from the right to be free from physical aggression is a good one, I think. As a society we do violate that right at times for the greater good, and I think that is fine. But intellectual property is a completely different thing, arguably a lot more complex as well. No harm comes to someone from a violation of intellectual property - they do not even lose possession of anything.

Physical property rights - a negative right - the right not to be hurt by others.
Intellectual property rights - a positive right - the right to demand others do not engage in certain behavior, that otherwise is not harmful to anyone.

[Kurioxan]

Really sounds like the opposite world over there, here doctors have to prescribe the cheapest brand and are actively encouraged to do so.

Thats a result of the EU id think, a lot changed for the best in a lot of areas... that was one of them.
I still remember when i was living in Portugal, there was this huge scandal about big pharma paying doctors vacations for prescribing their brands to patients instead of generics or alternatives.
Sometimes, even prescribing when there is no need.
This year, in the UK, that also happened, a lot of people taking drugs they didnt need, for some to reach quotas.
Its disgusting.

[Ungeir]

There is a lot of big pharma lobbying going on in the EU as well. Medication sold by EU-based companies is favored over foreign counterparts, sometimes even if those are superior.

[Kurioxan]

There is a lot of big pharma lobbying going on in the EU as well. Medication sold by EU-based companies is favored over foreign counterparts, sometimes even if those are superior.

Mhm, but its a bit more regulated and generics are quite common, so its an improvement.
(did just mention the shit that happened in the UK this year).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29274822 that for example, albeit done in china,.

[Acidbaron]

Thats a result of the EU id think, a lot changed for the best in a lot of areas... that was one of them.
I still remember when i was living in Portugal, there was this huge scandal about big pharma paying doctors vacations for prescribing their brands to patients instead of generics or alternatives.
Sometimes, even prescribing when there is no need.
This year, in the UK, that also happened, a lot of people taking drugs they didnt need, for some to reach quotas.
Its disgusting.

We have an almost direct ban on representatives giving gifts to doctors and pharmacists. It goes even as far as not allowing them to give them pens. Everything has to be very transparent and the only thing allowed is actual educational material.

Doctors are still free to prescribe most medicine they seem fit, although like most countries cut backs on handing out anti-bacterials like candy no longer happens. However i think most now comes from anti-depressive, sleeping pills and other sort pills of that nature that get handed out, nation wide we are still pretty bad in how much of those pills get consumed on a yearly basis. So it's not all great.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of big pharma lobbying going on in the EU as well. Medication sold by EU-based companies is favored over foreign counterparts, sometimes even if those are superior.

There is a lot of lobbying going on everywhere, for the most dumbest things the corporate part of the world wants. (1 billion lobby money being throw around to stop certain healthy food regulations, that were very basic)

Don't know if i believe medicine that is better being taken over EU one just for the sake of lobby power, the drug approval standards in both the EU and US are rather high, so if it is, it is a matter of how much better it is and perhaps it's evaluated that the minor increase in efficiency isn't worth the additional cost.

[Kurioxan]

Don't know if i believe medicine that is better being taken over EU one just for the sake of lobby power, the drug approval standards in both the EU and US are rather high, so if it is, it is a matter of how much better it is and perhaps it's evaluated that the minor increase in efficiency isn't worth the additional cost.

yeah, its progress but not quite there.
The anti-depressant/sleeping pills annoy the fuck out of me... many times an adjustment in lifestyle/diet/behaviour is enough.

[Ungeir]

We have an almost direct ban on representatives giving gifts to doctors and pharmacists. It goes even as far as not allowing them to give them pens. Everything has to be very transparent and the only thing allowed is actual educational material.

Doctors are still free to prescribe most medicine they seem fit, although like most countries cut backs on handing out anti-bacterials like candy no longer happens. However i think most now comes from anti-depressive, sleeping pills and other sort pills of that nature that get handed out, nation wide we are still pretty bad in how much of those pills get consumed on a yearly basis. So it's not all great.

- - - Updated - - -



There is a lot of lobbying going on everywhere, for the most dumbest things the corporate part of the world wants. (1 billion lobby money being throw around to stop certain healthy food regulations, that were very basic)

Don't know if i believe medicine that is better being taken over EU one just for the sake of lobby power, the drug approval standards in both the EU and US are rather high, so if it is, it is a matter of how much better it is and perhaps it's evaluated that the minor increase in efficiency isn't worth the additional cost.

It's different on a per-country basis I think. Denmark has fewer restrictions on doctors receiving education (ie really nice trips to nice places where they get told about awesome medicine) than what you mention from Belgium. Also, Danish doctors are very partial to Lundbeck (Danish company) anti-depressants, and Novo diabetes medication, etc. It makes some sense, given that trust in local companies is higher, but it does cross the line into protectionism as well.

yeah, its progress but not quite there.
The anti-depressant/sleeping pills annoy the fuck out of me... many times an adjustment in lifestyle/diet/behaviour is enough.

This is a good example of EU protectionism I think. SSRIs and SNRIs are overused compared to other antidepressants, and the older tricyclic-style antidepressants are almost completely out of use, despite being cheap and safe. I do think SSRIs and SNRIs have their use, sleeping pills not so much, unless you are talking about melatonin, but that's really supplement territory and having it prescription-only is bizarre. Some doctors give people benzos and such for extended periods of time vs sleep issues, which is just insane and borderline malpractice. Short periods, ok. But extended usage is just wtf.

[Kurioxan]

Some doctors give people benzos and such for extended periods of time vs sleep issues, which is just insane and borderline malpractice. Short periods, ok. But extended usage is just wtf.

I have a deep hatred for that kind of practice. Does more harm than good, its reckless and can have a lot of really bad effects... its sad. But people dont know better, blind trust.

[Orlong]

Source?
I can't believe I'm asking this from Orlong and expecting one....

Its literally in the first paragraph of the article linked in the OP

At a time of heightened attention to the rising cost of prescription drugs, doctors who treat patients with AIDS and cancer are denouncing the new cost to treat a condition that can be life-threatening

[Masark]

Really sounds like the opposite world over there, here doctors have to prescribe the cheapest brand and are actively encouraged to do so.

In the USA, it's generally more a pharmacist thing. Doctors might use a specific trade name and the pharmicist may or may not, or may have to, (depending on state law) substitute in an equivalent generic.

[Brubear]

if you dont like the price than dont buy it

welcome to capitalism

and what do you do when it's your only option since, as the article stated, the guy bought the patent and now owns a monopoly on the drug?

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, some of these actually do have an absurd cost to research, produce and probably the biggest cost - get approved. The cost of trials is extremely high. Some of this difficulty in getting approval is warranted, but some of it is an artificial barrier to entry that the current major players in the industry are lobbying to keep.

It's a difficult thing really - if there was no way to protect a research investment a lot of research would not happen, but the current system of being able to hold patents and exclusive rights for crazy long periods of time is arguably worse. But as mentioned elsewhere this has nothing to do with free market capitalism. Pharmaceuticals is a highly regulated industry based on state-enforced intellectual property rights.

The reason this is such a huge deal is it's a drug that is been on the market, unchanged, since 1953 I believe it is and they made absolutely NO change to it. They literally just went in, bought the patent for it so they had exclusive rights to a drug which has been on the market longer then a lot of us in this thread have been alive and jacked up the price by almost 5000% percent. The only cost they incurred was buying the patent.

[Egregious]

Absolutely despicable.

I like how his argument is that the drug is under-priced when considering the majority of other critical drugs on the market. Totally ignoring that nearly every drug is vastly and disgustingly overpriced.

[Zoldor]

I guess it's not clear to me why people think they have the right to tell a company what price they're allowed to sell a product they developed at. This is emphatically not a charity. The purchasing entities should decide what they're willing to pay for it; ideally, a government would pay a pretty high price if they think it's worth it.

The only thing that bothers me is that they're plainly lying about their motivation for the price hike.

First I see you didn't even bother to read any of the articles. They didn't develop it. He was a hedge Fund manager that played in Pharma, after leaving that he went to another company that fired him, now he convinced some people to invest and he bought the patent to this pill. He didn't develop shit. This gets done a lot but most Wall Street people know better than to do what this kid is doing. Hiking this much causes major back lash.

I'd explain the entire scam idea behind what he is doing but I've already typed it out twice for people. It is the same sort of scams they used to run frequently in the 80s. My favorite is his claim its under priced because people eventually get to stop using it and that no one should be criticizing him or his company. He's made a giant error by jacking the price this high he didn't want to be patient and is trying to cash in on mandated health insurance and folks misery as quickly as possible before either share dumping after his account sheet looks good for a quarter or two or attempting to flip the patent as quick as possible. And possibly because he fucked up as a hedge manager and lots of people are either owed money by him or he is in debt himself to them. Probably based on his attitude and what I've seen, maybe not the kind of people who's money you loose.

It is a scum bag move and the dude is a scum bag. It is pretty simple he's taking advantage of a non-regulated market in hopes of make a quick flip. He is also under investigation for trying to get drugs pulled by the FDA from companies his hedge fund was shorting at the time.

[TirielWoW]

Its mostly avoidable considering the overwhelming majority of people who need the drug need it because they have AIDS and its very rare for anyone to get HIV anymore from anything other than unprotected sex or drug use (in the US anyway which is where the drug has a high price)

It's also necessary for babies born to mothers infected with the parasite, as it can kill them. And cancer patients, as their immune systems are suppressed by chemotherapy. And transplant patients, as they have to suppress their immune systems in order for their bodies not to reject their transplanted organs. Oh, and people born with autoimmune disorders. So, um, that's a lot of people, actually.

[Jimmy Woods]

The biotech etf went down about 5% on Hillary Clinton's tweet. The smartest free-market money in the world is on a Clinton 2016

[derpkitteh]

this is why i laugh when the rich squirm, why i want them to suffer as horribly as possible. why i would make laws taking most of their money and redistribute it.

i despise the fact that they make me hate them so much, i don't want to hold hate for anything. but the rich truly deserve it.

[OneSent]

Not surprising. The pharmaceutical industry is chock full of scumbag, predatory behavior.

People will do anything and pay anything to stay alive and keep their heath. Drug companies know this and exploit it to a disgusting degree.

I'd be willing to bet that we overpay for 90% of all medication and medical procedures. It's not like we have a choice most of the time. Boycotting medication and treatment is not exactly in most people's best interest.

Big pharma sets a price, and you either pay or die.

[Ungeir]

And another story... http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tb-dru...rine-1.3237868

Can someone with knowledge about US patent / pharma laws explain how a company can have the rights to an off-patent drug? This makes no sense to me, how they can still hold rights to something after the patent has expired.