Inflated Cost of AIDS Medicine

[jcjim]

So I'm reading how this Aids drug that used to cost $13.50 now costs $750.00..This hedge fund bumb bought the rights to this drug and now is charging $750.00. How's that for capitalism.

[saevel25]

So I'm reading how this Aids drug that used to cost $13.50 now costs $750.00..This hedge fund bumb bought the rights to this drug and now is charging $750.00. How's that for capitalism.

I wonder if someone will get the smart idea to sue for negligence if the doctor tells them this drug has a high chance of saving their loved one's life yet the guy owning it charged so much they couldn't afford it.

edit,

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/22/investing/daraprim-aids-drug-price/index.html

Different take on it. It does seem a sketchy move. I do not know the full details of what the drug is primarily used for and what the exact business profile they are doing. The CEO claims they give away a lot of the drug for free anyways.

[Kenny Lee]

Yet another damn good reason to not get AIDS.

[Patch]

I read that article too. Yeah, he is gouging folks, but in the article I also read, he was also giving the pills away for free to those with insurance, and/or strapped for money.

I have also read that quite a few political candidates are using his greed to bolster their campaigns by developing a lid on monthly scripts. I think Clinton mentioned $250 as a monthly cap. Sounds good until the pill company drops a few million $$$$ into their campaign funds.

[newtogolf]

I read that article too. Yeah, he is gouging folks, but in the article I also read, he was also giving the pills away for free to those with insurance, and/or strapped for money.

I have also read that quite a few political candidates are using his greed to bolster their campaigns by developing a lid on monthly scripts. I think Clinton mentioned $250 as a monthly cap. Sounds good until the pill company drops a few million $$$$ into their campaign funds.

The stock market for the drug sector took a hit after Hillary promised to go after them if she gets elected.

They seem to be doing the right thing with the drug, giving it to those who need it if they can't afford it but charging those that can.  If the drug companies can't make big bucks on the cures they develop then they won't spend the money on R&D; and trials so it's a tough call how you fix it.

[jcjim]

I read that article too. Yeah, he is gouging folks, but in the article I also read, he was also giving the pills away for free to those with insurance, and/or strapped for money.

I have also read that quite a few political candidates are using his greed to bolster their campaigns by developing a lid on monthly scripts. I think Clinton mentioned $250 as a monthly cap. Sounds good until the pill company drops a few million $$$$ into their campaign funds.

Check back in about a year from now when the press dies down, this scum bag will be charging more than 750 wait and see.

[newtogolf]

Check back in about a year from now when the press dies down, this scum bag will be charging more than 750 wait and see.

Did you get fired by a big corporation, you seem to have issues with them in just about every thread you participate in.

[Kenny Lee]

I have also read that quite a few political candidates are using his greed to bolster their campaigns by developing a lid on monthly scripts. I think Clinton mentioned $250 as a monthly cap.

The cost to bring a new drug to the market is substantial. At $250 per month- where is the return on investment for the drug company? Why would a drug company bother to develop new drugs if they could not make any money?

Innovation would stop.

[saevel25]

The cost to bring a new drug to the market is substantial. At $250 per month- where is the return on investment for the drug company? Why would a drug company bother to develop new drugs if they could not make any money?

Innovation would stop.

It still has a lot to do with the fact that companies can have up to 25 years of protection against competition due to patent rights on the drugs.

In general terms, if GM had a 25 year window where no one would be able to buy a car in the USA but a GM. Their prices would go through the roof because majority of people NEED a car.

[newtogolf]

It still has a lot to do with the fact that companies can have up to 25 years of protection against competition due to patent rights on the drugs.

In general terms, if GM had a 25 year window where no one would be able to buy a car in the USA but a GM. Their prices would go through the roof because majority of people NEED a car.

They get that protection due to the cost of developing the drugs and the trials and process required to get them to market.  There is nothing to stop another drug company from developing a cure to a disease despite another company already having a drug on the market, they just can't rip off the exact formula.  Look in the cancer market, there are a lot of different options for different types of cancer.

In a capitalistic society the only way to motivate a business is to provide them with financial incentives.  It's too easy to reverse engineer the components of a drug so other protections have to be put in place to protect their investment.

[saevel25]

They get that protection due to the cost of developing the drugs and the trials and process required to get them to market.  There is nothing to stop another drug company from developing a cure to a disease despite another company already having a drug on the market, they just can't rip off the exact formula.  Look in the cancer market, there are a lot of different options for different types of cancer.

In a capitalistic society the only way to motivate a business is to provide them with financial incentives.  It's too easy to reverse engineer the components of a drug so other protections have to be put in place to protect their investment.

No I get that. A lot of times there is only one drug available.

My friend has to pay like $300 a pop for Advair because they are the only company that has been able to develop the an inhaled steroid for asthma. This has been really the only product that has helped him a lot.

Yea, they kinda have a big stranglehold on that specific market.

[newtogolf]

No I get that. A lot of times there is only one drug available.

My friend has to pay like $300 a pop for Advair because they are the only company that has been able to develop the an inhaled steroid for asthma. This has been really the only product that has helped him a lot.

Yea, they kinda have a big stranglehold on that specific market.

OT:  Your friend should do some research, my son has asthma, there are alternatives to Advair, though not as convenient. http://www.livingwithasthma.net/3-alternatives-to-advair-for-asthma/

[krupa]

I understand that it's expensive to develop new drugs and pharmaceutical (spelled it right on the first try!) companies are businesses and need to make money.  However this guy raised the price of a 62-year old drug by 4000% .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/22/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-explains-that-4000-percent-drug-price-hike-is-altruistic-not-greedy/

In this case, I find it hard to believe any explanation other than "money is more important to me than other people's lives."

[Gator Hazard]

I understand that it's expensive to develop new drugs and pharmaceutical (spelled it right on the first try!) companies are businesses and need to make money.  However this guy raised the price of a 62-year old drug by 4000%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/22/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-explains-that-4000-percent-drug-price-hike-is-altruistic-not-greedy/

In this case, I find it hard to believe any explanation other than "money is more important to me than other people's lives."

I agree, besides we have not been fighting aids for 62 years.  What bothered me was that this puke started tweeting eminem quotes when questioned on why he jacked the price.  I thought that showed a lot about his character and maturity level.  Some people should not be allowed to have the power and influence that they do.

[jcjim]

Did you get fired by a big corporation, you seem to have issues with them in just about every thread you participate in.

If your post wasn't so silly I'd call you a [expletive deleted] And you're a forum leader? do you have to go to BS school to be one ;0

[jcjim]

The cost to bring a new drug to the market is substantial. At $250 per month- where is the return on investment for the drug company? Why would a drug company bother to develop new drugs if they could not make any money?

Innovation would stop.

That's why the drug companys are one of if not the most profitable. That's why ALL THE NEW DRUGS are protected by a law that says if the drug hurts you or kills. you cannot sue for damages.

That's why they are reformulating old drugs by adding a insignificant meaningless drug to them and renaming them so all the old drugs can be under this crazy new law of no liability. You can thank george bush for that

[jcjim]

Everything we need or have to have is controlled by some big corporation that gives a rats a-- for any of us..

The vast majority of our money deposited in banks is controlled by 8 banks soon to be less. Does this bother you at all.

Since Morgan Stanley has won out and got rid of Lehmann Bros (sp ). MS is in all the countries setting up there banks

brokerage houses. Everyone is in for some bad times in the future

[DaveP043]

I can see two sides of the debate over the prices of medicines.  On one hand, the pharma companies spend immense amounts of money, developing, patenting, and testing lots of different drugs in order to find just one or two that are safe and effective enough to market.  it can takes years, even a decade, to get through to the point where they can actually sell something, so the 20 (to 25) year patent becomes effectively a 10 to 15 year exclusive.  In the meantime, the other companies are working their backsides off to come up with something to take the place of the current drugs in the marketplace.  A manufacturer may only have a year or two to try to turn a profit on the whole venture before his own drug becomes "last year's model".  I know it seems wrong, but people and companies DO make money off of sick people.  If they didn't make money, they wouldn't be doing it.  Even with all that, I have no idea how they choose to price these drugs.  Its a very strange system we have.  If we want to take the profit motive out of drug research, we could let the government take care of all research, but does anyone think THAT would be a good idea?