Simple Capitalism or Disgusting & Dangerous Gouging

[Fuzz]

Maybe we need some sort of "eminent domain" for drugs. If the government can expropriate property for the public good, why not drug patents(in extreme cases like this)?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe we need some sort of "eminent domain" for drugs. If the government can expropriate property for the public good, why not drug patents(in extreme cases like this)?

It would need to be very clearly defined, because that threat would diminish incentive for innovation. If I'm at risk of losing a patent I spent $1B on (an actual reasonable number), why would I spend that money?

[bizaro86]

So, I read a bit more, and the drug in question has no patent protection. Any generic company could start-up production and sell (subject to usual safety rules, etc). The drug is not very commonly used, so nobody has. I'm almost certain that if the $750 price stuck, some other generic would have undercut.

[calculoso]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/turing...rugs-1.3238202

The price of Daraprim, a generic drug that has been around for decades and is used to treat a potentially deadly infection called toxoplasmosis, jumped from $13.50 US per pill to $750 per pill since the New York City-based company acquired the rights to the drug in August.

A generic at $750/pill? Absolutely disgusting.

Making it worse - this is apparently only the latest example of drug price gouging. No wonder health care prices are skyrocketing if financial hedge fund managers are getting in on the game.

Front-line tuberculosis doctors in Canada were recently sticker shocked that the price of an essential medication for drug-resistant TB went through the roof for no apparent reason.

Cycloserine is a critical drug used to treat a rare and dangerous form of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Overnight in North America, cycloserine went from $15 US per pill to $360 US.

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

[FlameOn]

Isn't this the same guy that raised kidney drug price 2000%+ last year and complained it was because the company wasn't making any money on this and got flamed for it then too?

Seriously I think abuse like this should be subject to extensive fines. India has it right when they started their own companies to manufacture drugs at much lower rates and refuses to grant patents on things like cancer and other life critical drugs.

[Coach]

Daily fun fact:

When Canadian scientist Frederick Banting extracted and introduced insulin as a treatment for diabetes, he and his team licensed pharmaceutical companies to reproduce it for FREE.

We need more people like that.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It would need to be very clearly defined, because that threat would diminish incentive for innovation. If I'm at risk of losing a patent I spent $1B on (an actual reasonable number), why would I spend that money?

For the good of humanity.

But realistically, that would never happen

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Daily fun fact:

When Canadian scientist Frederick Banting extracted and introduced insulin as a treatment for diabetes, he and his team licensed pharmaceutical companies to reproduce it for FREE.

We need more people like that.

A great man. But I wonder if that would happen today?

[Locke]

Man, if that guy got rare and dangerous multidrug-resistant tuberculosis it would be a sweet sense of cosmic irony and even potentially exist as of evidence of God.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

A great man. But I wonder if that would happen today?

Well, the scientists licensed it for free. What the pharma companies did with it after was up to them.

It could happen today, but it wouldn't have any relevance to the price the pharma company charged. Especially considering most studies/discoveries would be made by their own scientists.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

Man, if that guy got rare and dangerous multidrug-resistant tuberculosis it would be a sweet sense of cosmic irony and even potentially exist as of evidence of God.

I think the fact that this guy thinks these kinds of actions have no personal or social consequences is sweet enough.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well, the scientists licensed it for free. What the pharma companies did with it after was up to them.

It could happen today, but it wouldn't have any relevance to the price the pharma company charged. Especially considering most studies/discoveries would be made by their own scientists.

So he was a Gov't of Canada funded scientist or at a university?

[Coach]

U of T

[AcGold]

When all of CP is united in dislike you know someone is scummy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

When all of CP is united in dislike you know someone is scummy.

i actually emitted a laugh

[peter12]

Paul Offit has written a number of excellent books documenting the disgusting profiteering in pharmaceuticals, particularly evidenced by the move away from vaccinations towards untested therapy drugs.

A bit different in this case. However, given the age of the drug, you can only imagine that it is part of the HIV cocktail (HAART), and that people on the drug can simply switch to a similar drug at marginal cost.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by polak

You can limit mark ups and still keep profits.

Healthcare should not be a supply v. demand based industry.

It's not. In Canada anyway. I am unfamiliar with the US.
In Canada drugs are priced at cost versus benefit.
Any new molecule invented that betters our lives comes from for profit big pharma research. Billions are spent. And the potential profit drives the innovation/research.
Every one of us likely has several loved ones who are alive today and/or enjoy some quality of life from this for profit research.
And yes - any time there is the potential for those kinds of profits, there will be those who act unethically, both individuals and corporations.
This guy is a piece of ####.

[CaptainYooh]

Something in this story doesn't make any sense. I am not aware of the minute details of the drug patent systems in Canada and US; however, I believe that all new drug patents expire at some point and then their formulations are up for reproduction by generic drug manufacturers. The shelf life of a new patent is not that long, certainly less than 60 years. Large pharmaceuticals often circumvent this by introducing modifications to their patents and extending their shelf life. But, in general, a 60-yr old drug should be reproducible without patent violation. And, if nobody wants to manufacture it because of the low demand, then either the government needs to step in and do it themselves or, pay the piper that wants to do it. I do agree this guy looks very sleazy and unlikable, but ...

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Something in this story doesn't make any sense. I am not aware of the minute details of the drug patent systems in Canada and US; however, I believe that all new drug patents expire at some point and then their formulations are up for reproduction by generic drug manufacturers. The shelf life of a new patent is not that long, certainly less than 60 years. Large pharmaceuticals often circumvent this by introducing modifications to their patents and extending their shelf life. But, in general, a 60-yr old drug should be reproducible without patent violation. And, if nobody wants to manufacture it because of the low demand, then either the government needs to step in and do it themselves or, pay the piper that wants to do it. I do agree this guy looks very sleazy and unlikable, but ...

The US patent system has been increasingly under attack by various interest groups proposing longer patent periods. Funny enough, some of the biggest proponents of arguing for longer IP periods is Hollywood.

Although I cannot comment on the similarities so, don't roast me if I'm making a leap here.

[FlameOn]

Found the story about the other life saving kidney drugs this goofball also raised the raised the prices on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10513645.html