panfried: Little to no profit margin, which it seems is the only corporate incentive. Sickening that they put profit over the value of life itself.

Money is now the God of the United States.

Okay, as a conservative, here's what I think we should do.

Continue to slow or halt production of this drug, unless a child I know needs it. If that happens, give the drug to this child, then resume slowing or halting production. Also, impeach Obama.

This is yet another reason why we should socialize pharmaceutical production.

Or something.

Weaver95: ArkAngel: panfried: Little to no profit margin, which it seems is the only corporate incentive.

So you would be for forcing a company to make a product despite the fact that they would always lose money on it because someone else can make it cheaper?

how much is a human life worth to you? can you give me a ballpark figure? are children worth more or less?

I need to know your answer to these questions before we continue on further.

Nothing new with Orphan Drugs. Quincy talked about it back in the 70s (my dad had a one second background extra role.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

I would be for immediate forced licensing of their patents.

If they can't keep up with demand for critical drugs, let a judge determine how much per pill a third party must pay for a license to produce the same drug, and then force licensing and disclosure.

The wiki says:

Orphan drug legislation

Orphan drugs generally follow the same regulatory development path as any other pharmaceutical product, in which testing focuses on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, dosing, stability, safety and efficacy. However, some statistical burdens are lessened in an effort to maintain development momentum. For example, orphan drug regulations generally acknowledge the fact that it may not be possible to test 1,000 patients in a phase III clinical trial, as fewer than that number may be afflicted with the disease in question.

Since the market for any drug with such a limited application scope would, by definition, be small and thus largely unprofitable, government intervention is often required to motivate a manufacturer to address the need for an orphan drug. Critics of free market enterprise often cite this as a failure of free market economic systems.

The intervention by government on behalf of orphan drug development can take a variety of forms:
Tax incentives.
Enhanced patent protection and marketing rights.
Clinical research financial subsidization.
Creating a government-run enterprise to engage in research and development (see Crown corporation).

BKITU: The companies have cited high demand or manufacturing delays as reasons for the shortage.

Looks like a common supply-chain issue to me. You get more demand for a product than you had projected, you get delays in raw material shipments. It's unlikely to be an actual nefarious plot.

/I work in supply chain, so I'm really getting a kick...
//I'll hold the moral outrage until there's a whiff of proof that they're colluding to hold back product.

common sense is rare but worth repeating

quickdraw: Actually there is. Drugs needed to sustain life should be considered basic infrastructure and should be funded by society as a whole. We need to get past this silly idea that personal profit is the pinnacle of human achievement.

This.

For certain drugs that aren't profitable enough for for-profit pharmaceutical companies but still necessary a government subsidized non-profit organization would be ideal.

They ARE colluding. A drug I take weekly went from $85 a week to $1300 a week in the span of two years. All 3 manufacturers simultaneously raised the price 1200% for no farking reason.

Greed is greed.

This isn't a nefarious plot to exploit children undergoing chemotherapy. According to the FDA website (new window), there are five companies licensed to manufacture the drug product in question (methotrexate). Two are not delivering the product due to manufacturing delays. This has created higher than expected demand for the other three companies.

Most manufacturers can't snap their fingers and switch the product they are going to make. There are concerns of supply (which usually must be ordered months in advance of the anticipated manufacturing date) and the effect on other products they make (if they make product A, they don't have the capacity to make product B.)

I prefer Forsythia


/not obscure I hope

Weaver95: ArkAngel: Lets say that we have a drug that lost patent protection 10 years ago. The inventor, Company A, stopped making the drug five years ago because two generic companies took away most of its business and it retooled the line for something else. Now one of the generic companies, Company B, has gone out of business and the other, Company C, doesn't have th ...

again I ask you - what's your ballpark figure on how much human life is worth?

That's not really the point and his example is probably close to home on this issue -is company A required to make the drug forever? Even if they've been out of that market and there is now, probably do to events utterly outside their control, unable to flip a switch and make more?


Now, if company A just announced that they are getting out of the manufacture of that drug and it becomes immediately obvious that supply problems will result, then yes, I feel the gov't has a right to step in and insist they continue until such a time as another manufacturer can be found.

Weaver95: how much is a human life worth to you? can you give me a ballpark figure?

According to Time it's $129,000 (as of 2008) (new window)

ArkAngel: panfried: Little to no profit margin, which it seems is the only corporate incentive.

So you would be for forcing a company to make a product despite the fact that they would always lose money on it because someone else can make it cheaper?

Yes.

It saves lives. They aren't doing it, people are dying because of it.

They make plenty of money off overpriced boner pills and treatments for made-up crap like "restless leg syndrome". . .effective treatments/cures for actual fatal illnesses should NOT be shelved just because a bean counter decided it isn't profitable enough to save human lives.

The free market is not God, profit is not an end unto itself, and no, you are not entitled to the sweat of your brow if you stole from your fellow man to get it.

Go into a Children's Hospital and look right at a dying child, look him square in the eye. Tell him that he's going to die because it's "socialism" to make a drug company produce the drugs that could save his life. Tell him he's going to die because that's The American Way. Tell his parents that their little girl is going to die a slow and painful death because it isn't profitable enough to make the drugs that can save her.

. . .or keep on being an ITG and worship Ayn Rand.

Weaver95: ArkAngel: Lets say that we have a drug that lost patent protection 10 years ago. The inventor, Company A, stopped making the drug five years ago because two generic companies took away most of its business and it retooled the line for something else. Now one of the generic companies, Company B, has gone out of business and the other, Company C, doesn't have th ...

again I ask you - what's your ballpark figure on how much human life is worth?

The US government puts it at $6-8 million, depending on the department.

/Death panels in action

fusillade762: Weaver95: how much is a human life worth to you? can you give me a ballpark figure?

According to Time it's $129,000 (as of 2008) (new window)

That's per year.

BKITU: Looks like a common supply-chain issue to me. You get more demand for a product than you had projected, you get delays in raw material shipments. It's unlikely to be an actual nefarious plot.

/I work in supply chain, so I'm really getting a kick...
//I'll hold the moral outrage until there's a whiff of proof that they're colluding to hold back product.


The reporter has a lot of theories and has quotes from doctors but didn't get direct comment from the actual makers of the drugs. I guess that would have been irresponsible.

Supply chains. How do they work?

GAT_00: Yet production stopped and they cite costs. It's bullshiat and they should be punished. They don't think they're making enough profit? Nationalize them.

Your brain has the ability to understand complexity that would astound a 3 yr old. 5 year olds.... not so much. But those 3 year olds would be amazed.

Sometimes a company will subsidize one product with profit from another. Sometimes the raw material cost increases. There are variances in the whole scheme which affects the final product's cost and availability. Sometimes they cut down production for newer drugs and there's down time in the supply chain.

In any billion dollar industry there's a lot of waste money used to oil those difficult issues. Sometimes when people try and control costs, the money used to keep these troubles from popping up dries up.

You or anyone trying to micromanage it ain't going to make it any better. Unless of course you got a deep pocket.

alessandro: This isn't a nefarious plot to exploit children undergoing chemotherapy. According to the FDA website (new window), there are five companies licensed to manufacture the drug product in question (methotrexate). Two are not delivering the product due to manufacturing delays. This has created higher than expected demand for the other three companies.

Most manufacturers can't snap their fingers and switch the product they are going to make. There are concerns of supply (which usually must be ordered months in advance of the anticipated manufacturing date) and the effect on other products they make (if they make product A, they don't have the capacity to make product B.)

Exactly, there isn't anything in the article that says the companies have "slowed or halted production". Subby probably should have tried reading it before submitting it.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

So are we ready to admit that profit-motive should not dominate every aspect of our society? Or is that still teh soshulizm?

Scroll up a bit and you'll see that some Farkers are already proposing nationalizing the drug company over this. Yes, that's called socialism. Did you guys see the recent article where the average drug costs $4B to create? Do you think drug companies would invest this kind of money if there wasn't a profit at the end of the tunnel?

Of course, since subby has the reading comprehension of a six-year-old, so let's quote what the article actually says.

The companies have cited high demand or manufacturing delays as reasons for the shortage.

Produce X of an item. If demand is 2X, there will be a shortage. This isn't rocket science. All the companies that produce this drug now have extra incentive to kick off production, because whoever gets to market first will make huge profits taking the other guys' market share. The incentive for profit will get this item back on the shelves as quickly as possible. What's laughable is the idea that government could produce the item more efficiently, so that there would be no shortage and the cost would decrease.

Everybody wants to cut healthcare spending until they realize that at some point, nobody is willing to provide the service or drug anymore.

Wecome to healthcare folks. No death panels, no government getting between you and your doctor. Just cut prices until the suppliers stop supplying.

Go be sick somewhere else.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

So are we ready to admit that profit-motive should not dominate every aspect of our society? Or is that still teh soshulizm?

You got a way to get the truck drivers that haul the materials to drive for free? A way to fuel the trucks for free? A way to run the machinery for free? A way to get the lab tech to work for free?

Until you come up with a way to make the whole chain work for what you want them to work for... then you're gonna have a problem.

You cry "profit motive"... I cry some "paychecks".

Silverstaff: ArkAngel: panfried: Little to no profit margin, which it seems is the only corporate incentive.

So you would be for forcing a company to make a product despite the fact that they would always lose money on it because someone else can make it cheaper?

Yes.

It saves lives. They aren't doing it, people are dying because of it.

They make plenty of money off overpriced boner pills and treatments for made-up crap like "restless leg syndrome". . .effective treatments/cures for actual fatal illnesses should NOT be shelved just because a bean counter decided it isn't profitable enough to save human lives.

The free market is not God, profit is not an end unto itself, and no, you are not entitled to the sweat of your brow if you stole from your fellow man to get it.

Go into a Children's Hospital and look right at a dying child, look him square in the eye. Tell him that he's going to die because it's "socialism" to make a drug company produce the drugs that could save his life. Tell him he's going to die because that's The American Way. Tell his parents that their little girl is going to die a slow and painful death because it isn't profitable enough to make the drugs that can save her.

. . .or keep on being an ITG and worship Ayn Rand.

Honestly, if that's your opinion, why don't you start a company with that specific purpose?

I'm sure all the like-minded people ITT all work for free for some charitable cause. It's laughable.

methotrexate is also used in chemical abortions. So, if you think about it, supply problems might actually save lives in the long run, or at least zero net change. Any parents that lose a child to leukemia gets one unaborted baby.

Done and done

downpaymentblues: Money is now the God of the United States.

Now?.. wasn't it always?

mikdeetx: They ARE colluding. A drug I take weekly went from $85 a week to $1300 a week in the span of two years. All 3 manufacturers simultaneously raised the price 1200% for no farking reason.

Greed is greed.

Not to be nosy, but mind me asking what drug? As a hospital pharmacist, I'm not sure I've ever seen a drug take that sort of leap in price.

EIP if you don't wanna post it here.

So we have a RTFA:DNRTFA ratio of about 1:20 in this thread. But why bother reading when you could spend your time excoriating an big industry and ranting about capitalism, eh?

/subby is apparently in the DNRTFA column.

panfried: Little to no profit margin, which it seems is the only corporate incentive. Sickening that they put profit over the value of life itself. But since this generic drug cures childhood leukemia, the profit realized is in the continued treatment, otherwise lost on the cure.

This used to not be the case. Labs got money from the government to generate medical treatments for the greater good of society and once they were created the government could issue them. This is no longer the case. Wonderful.

You still think cancer is incurable?
Too bad it is not profitable enough to prove you wrong.

Cancer cure found in Canada, but Big Pharma says "No Way!" (new window)

/Welcome to the machine. Yes, this is reality.

Weaver95: again I ask you - what's your ballpark figure on how much human life is worth?

Going rate is a minimum of about 8-12% over the cost of maintaining it with a targeted average of 30%. Anything above that is gravy. So, however much that is, plus the margin, is your answer. Not that I agree with it, but just saying.

Or the Feds could institute a nationalized research and development system similar to what private pharma uses and set their own prices. They wouldn't have to deal with so much FDA crap, but then they'd have the traditional government bloat and overspending for which the Fed is so famous. But... I guess they could call is a 'subsidy' like they usually do when they have cost overruns and bloat to help glaze over the incompetence.

This is the libertarian paradise that you Ron Paul supporters can look forward to.