Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Remember how Gilead Pharmaceuticals "generously" stepped up and donated its entire supply of the antiviral drug Remdesivir to fight the pandemic? Well, first taste was free, now it's going to cost $2,400-$3,100 a dose   (cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Developed country, Price, Cyprus, COVID-19 treatment remdesivir, Gilead CEO Dan O'Day, international COVID-19 drug trial, Virus, Developing country  
•       •       •

1922 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2020 at 11:20 AM (13 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-06-29 10:44:21 AM  
39 votes:

cretinbob: That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.


Getting health care in the United States is ridiculously expensive and everyone seems to really like it that way.
 
2020-06-29 11:22:42 AM  
23 votes:
We're going to American ourselves to death.
 
2020-06-29 11:21:19 AM  
20 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-29 11:22:56 AM  
18 votes:
Like I've said before, there should be 2 weeks a year when it's legal to hunt pharmaceutical execs. With a permit of course.
 
2020-06-29 10:58:54 AM  
18 votes:
Dude, they were bragging it was less than$10 for the entire course of treatment. Remember, the best thing they could say about it was it didn't kill you outright, and possibly it shortened the length of the hospital stay.
It doesn't change mortality. If you are going to die or go on a vent, you are going to die or go on a vent.
It's not a cure. If it worked in 90%+ of people and changed mortality, then sure, it would be worth it.
And I'm not saying don't use it, I'm saying fark these guys.
 
2020-06-29 11:23:39 AM  
16 votes:

AAAAGGGGHHHH: [Fark user image 850x560]


Thanks a lot.  I just punched my screen because of you.  It was a reflex response to seeing that face.
 
2020-06-29 10:39:52 AM  
16 votes:
That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.
 
2020-06-29 11:31:03 AM  
15 votes:

Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.


Relative to marketing costs, this is a true statement.
 
2020-06-29 10:51:12 AM  
15 votes:
Ghouls.
 
2020-06-29 11:36:21 AM  
12 votes:

Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.


Did you miss this part:
The price of the drug is coming under criticism, with consumer advocacy group Public Citizen pointing out that the treatment was developed with at least $70 million in taxpayer funds.

Give the American public at least $70 million worth of the drug for free, then we'll talk, but you are still charging too much. They are using the typical pass the buck excuse "Well that's just what we charge the hospitals and insurance companies, not the patient. The patient pays whatever their hospitals and insurance companies say they have to. They are the baddies, not us"

/why not all?
 
2020-06-29 11:22:32 AM  
11 votes:
Remember, this is the Republican platform.
 
2020-06-29 11:38:17 AM  
10 votes:

Gheist: Moopy Mac: Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.

Relative to marketing costs, this is a true statement.

You don't know what you are talking about


White knighting Big Pharma?
You are a POS.
 
2020-06-29 11:52:20 AM  
7 votes:

Magorn: Gheist: Moopy Mac: Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.

Relative to marketing costs, this is a true statement.

You don't know what you are talking about

Watch this, then get back to me :
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7909184/

Valeant Pharma, once Wall-street's favorite drug company opearated on a business model of buying hundred of smaller drug companies, slashing R&D budgets or eliminating them entirely, and then cranking the prices of the drugs they already had under patent


I also suspect significant price fixing of approved drugs.  We have a friend who takes a common daily cancer med that was approved in 1982 and is off-patent. There are two similar approved drugs which were also approved in the 80s and also off-patent.  The pharma company was charging the insurance company and our friend $120,000/year for these tablets which cost something like $0.10 per pill if that.  It should be $10 or $50  per year.
All three pharma companies charged nearly the same amount for their similar drugs almost to the penny.
But free market, amirite?
 
2020-06-29 11:06:32 AM  
7 votes:
Somebody on Fark predicted this.
 
2020-06-29 11:52:20 AM  
6 votes:

cretinbob: Don't be a heroin junkie or have unprotected sex with junkies and you wouldn't get it in the first place.


Or get a blood transfusion in the 70's. Friend's mom died that way
 
2020-06-29 11:38:55 AM  
6 votes:

Gheist: Moopy Mac: Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.

Relative to marketing costs, this is a true statement.

You don't know what you are talking about


Watch this, then get back to me :
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7909184/​

Valeant Pharma, once Wall-street's favorite drug company opearated on a business model of buying hundred of smaller drug companies, slashing R&D budgets or eliminating them entirely, and then cranking the prices of the drugs they already had under patent
 
2020-06-29 11:36:04 AM  
6 votes:

Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.


Cheap for the drug dealers, at least.  Since the bulk of legitimate development and testing is either done at federal/university labs or is being subsidized by the feds.  But shareholders and the CEOs need their shares of theft.
 
2020-06-29 11:24:06 AM  
6 votes:
So when do the riots about this shiat start?
 
2020-06-29 11:47:15 AM  
5 votes:

flondrix: Still, I would be curious what the anywhere-but-the-USA price is.

$600 FTFA

cretinbob: That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.


3 days in the hospital costs more than $3k. Another article was saying that just shortening the hospital stay would save ~$12k per patient
 
2020-06-29 11:36:44 AM  
5 votes:

Veloram: edmo: Somebody on Fark predicted this.

Somebody on Fark predicted this.

FTFY


[Everyone predicted that]

This kind of behavior from pharma companies is so ordinary it hardly warrants comment now.  Price gouging is the intended result of the laws and regulations that govern the industry.  They paid good money to buy those laws, and now they're getting a return on their investment.
 
2020-06-29 11:24:23 AM  
5 votes:

cretinbob: Wait, my bad. I gave some incorrect information
It only helps 47% of people if you are on oxygen, and the numbers of people it helps who are worse than that goes down rapidly

That's the study from Gilead. An independent study concluded it did nothing, but again, it didn't kill you outright so go for it.


Gilead's business model has always been making placebo caliber compounds and using their board of directors connections to commercialize them.

Not sure they've ever made an effective drug.
 
2020-06-29 11:12:26 AM  
5 votes:
Wait, my bad. I gave some incorrect information
It only helps 47% of people if you are on oxygen, and the numbers of people it helps who are worse than that goes down rapidly

That's the study from Gilead. An independent study concluded it did nothing, but again, it didn't kill you outright so go for it.
 
2020-06-29 12:21:35 PM  
4 votes:

satanorsanta: Bazzlex001: And as it turns out, it is almost never a new drug because these companies don't spend any of their record profits on R & D, because it reduces shareholder revenues

Pharma companies spend billions of dollars on R&D. As a scientist at a small pharma company I am glad, or else I wouldn't have a job.


And they spend significantly more on marketing than they do on R&D.
 
2020-06-29 11:50:46 AM  
4 votes:

satanorsanta: H31N0US: cretinbob: Wait, my bad. I gave some incorrect information
It only helps 47% of people if you are on oxygen, and the numbers of people it helps who are worse than that goes down rapidly

That's the study from Gilead. An independent study concluded it did nothing, but again, it didn't kill you outright so go for it.

Gilead's business model has always been making placebo caliber compounds and using their board of directors connections to commercialize them.

Not sure they've ever made an effective drug.

They literally cured HCV. Just because you don't like the pricing doesn't mean you need to make shiat up


Don't be a heroin junkie or have unprotected sex with junkies and you wouldn't get it in the first place.
And they are just the manufacturers.

Gilead is just the manufacturer. Sofosbuvir was developed by a small company, and when it showed promise, Gliead bought them out.
 
2020-06-29 11:49:12 AM  
4 votes:
$3100 to get out of hospital three days early seems a win all around. I had a three day stay and the hospital billed insurance $18000. Lower overall cost of care and it frees up beds.
 
2020-06-29 11:49:04 AM  
4 votes:
Also, its not $3k per dose, rather per full treatment duration
 
2020-06-29 11:41:53 AM  
4 votes:

H31N0US: cretinbob: Wait, my bad. I gave some incorrect information
It only helps 47% of people if you are on oxygen, and the numbers of people it helps who are worse than that goes down rapidly

That's the study from Gilead. An independent study concluded it did nothing, but again, it didn't kill you outright so go for it.

Gilead's business model has always been making placebo caliber compounds and using their board of directors connections to commercialize them.

Not sure they've ever made an effective drug.


They literally cured HCV. Just because you don't like the pricing doesn't mean you need to make shiat up
 
2020-06-29 11:34:33 AM  
4 votes:

Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.


Well, cheap to develop and test compared to what is spent advertising them, anyway.

I was gonna go on my rant about how we keep drugs exclusive to one company long after they should be generic, but I see that Remdesivir was developed starting in 2009 and granted a patent in 2019, so it's legitimately still under patent.

Still, I would be curious what the anywhere-but-the-USA price is.
 
2020-06-29 11:32:12 AM  
4 votes:

Moopy Mac: Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.

Relative to marketing costs, this is a true statement.


You don't know what you are talking about
 
2020-06-29 11:31:59 AM  
4 votes:

Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.


Gilead donated the entire current supply because it cost less than $10 for an entire 10 day course of treatment. That's what they were charging before. This is not a new drug, but thanks for playing.
 
2020-06-29 11:30:53 AM  
4 votes:
Ah, truly the Kingdom of Gilead is at hand!
 
2020-06-29 11:26:26 AM  
4 votes:

edmo: Somebody on Fark predicted this.

Somebody on Fark predicted this.


FTFY
 
2020-06-29 12:30:07 PM  
3 votes:

cretinbob: AdmirableSnackbar: cretinbob: Surpheon: This is freeing up expensive beds

No, it's freeing up cheap beds. People in ICU, the expensive beds, see little benefit.

This is straight up price gouging.
They were charging $9.60 before this.
What justifies them raising it to over $3000, morally or ethically?

Capitlism.

Captialism is neither moral nor ethical.


In the United States of America morality and ethics are determined by how much money you have and nothing else.
 
2020-06-29 11:53:25 AM  
3 votes:

cretinbob: This is not a new drug, but thanks for playing.


Actually, it is:
Remdesivir was originally created and developed by Gilead Sciences in 2009...the USPTO granted two patents on remdesivir to Gilead Sciences on April 9, 2019

Trust me, I am the first to scream when a drug that has existed since the 19th century packaged in an autoinjector developed for the US Army in the 1970's is being sold as a two-pack (so you have to throw them both away when they reach the expiration date) for over $400, but this drug really does fall within the scope of "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[ For now, anyway.
 
2020-06-29 11:28:40 AM  
3 votes:
Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.
 
2020-06-29 4:41:23 PM  
2 votes:

flondrix: Northern: I actually performed a market analysis. Basically there is a convenience "gap" in cost that is just narrow enough to be not really worth it for them to travel every month to the low cost region. For cheaper medication, it is clearly not worth it and 95% of Americans can't afford to spend $3k every month to pick up their foreign prescriptions. This person has a high earning spouse, so they could afford the $36,000 per year copay for the meds. Thanks to Obama and the ACA their copay went down to $50/month or $600/year.
If there were a cheap destination where US consumers could buy a years supply in one visit, they would probably do well.
It's amazing how we have illegal drugs which are cheaper and more abundant than 40 years ago despite insane penalties but legal life saving medicine is more difficult to get and is much more expensive.
/But single payer where parents don't have to slowly kill their children by rationing insulin would be communism.

But why is the medicine being sold at a lower price abroad in the first place?

This is what I believe is going on, feel free to shoot me down.  If pharmaceutical companies tried to charge the same insane price elsewhere that the do in the USA, the various national health services--large buyers with a fair bit of market clout, and even larger if several of them form a "buyers club"--would start soliciting bids from alternative manufacturers, with a guaranteed schedule of future purchases.  Remember, many of these drugs are already out of patent, and I don't think foreign courts would allow the "evergreening" bullshiat that US courts let them get away with.  Once those manufacturers had their alternate production of these medicines up and running, the US pharmaceutical companies would lose international market share forever, as the large buyers would like having a choice of sources.  Who knows, some US health insurance companies might even try to see how they could get in on some of this reasonably priced insulin, and they are not without influence in the US government themselves.  It would be a disaster, so the US pharmaceutical companies want to make sure it doesn't happen.  They keep the price of things like Lantus just low enough abroad to discourage any competing manufacturing from starting up.


The U.K. and other countries negotiate drug costs.  The US government is actually legally barred from negotiating prices.  It's for similar reasons we elect right wing politicians to high office.
We also spend close to triple on a per capita basis for health care that is ranked 27 globally, next to Slovenia.  Your health care quality depends heavily on your privilege / income.  If you are a top 5%, or have a cushy government or union job or retirement then you have good health care.  Work a gig job in a red state?  Then you likely don't have health insurance.  Or paid sick leave, or vacation, or retirement benefits.
 
2020-06-29 3:47:51 PM  
2 votes:

ketkarsa: "pricing a new medicine"??  They developed it in 2009.


They started working on it in 2009, it didn't work for the first disease they tried it on so they tried it on some others, etc., and the patents weren't granted until last year.
 
2020-06-29 3:09:09 PM  
2 votes:
Because of course they are.

Fark the US Healthcare "system"...it's a farking racket.
 
2020-06-29 2:51:07 PM  
2 votes:

flondrix: Northern: I also suspect significant price fixing of approved drugs. We have a friend who takes a common daily cancer med that was approved in 1982 and is off-patent. There are two similar approved drugs which were also approved in the 80s and also off-patent. The pharma company was charging the insurance company and our friend $120,000/year for these tablets which cost something like $0.10 per pill if that. It should be $10 or $50 per year.
All three pharma companies charged nearly the same amount for their similar drugs almost to the penny.
But free market, amirite?

Did you ever find out what the prices of these drugs were outside of the United States?  Not the price the patients pay (which is often zero), but the price the manufacturers of the drug charge for it if the delivery address is located somewhere outside of the USA?

Why can't Americans pay the same low price that the rest of the world does for life-saving drugs?  I don't mean the government subsidized price (though that would be nice), I mean the price that the same pharmaceutical companies charge when their drugs are being purchased by a health service in another country.  Clearly those prices are sufficiently profitable, or the manufacturers would save themselves a lot of money by simply not selling in those countries.

If it is because drugs are cheaper to make in other countries (which might be true, but not by three or four orders of magnitude), they why don't we import these drugs from the countries where they are available at a lower price, as we do with everything else?


Yes.
I actually performed a market analysis.  Basically there is a convenience "gap" in cost that is just narrow enough to be not really worth it for them to travel every month to the low cost region.  For cheaper medication, it is clearly not worth it and 95% of Americans can't afford to spend $3k every month to pick up their foreign prescriptions.  This person has a high earning spouse, so they could afford the $36,000 per year copay for the meds.  Thanks to Obama and the ACA their copay went down to $50/month or $600/year.
If there were a cheap destination where US consumers could buy a years supply in one visit, they would probably do well.
It's amazing how we have illegal drugs which are cheaper and more abundant than 40 years ago despite insane penalties but legal life saving medicine is more difficult to get and is much more expensive.
/But single payer where parents don't have to slowly kill their children by rationing insulin would be communism.
 
2020-06-29 1:23:29 PM  
2 votes:

AAAAGGGGHHHH: [Fark user image 850x560]


I would love to kick the living shiat out of that punkass
 
2020-06-29 1:18:41 PM  
2 votes:

Magorn: One of the serious reforms I would like to see taken up in whatever Healthcare bill the Dem Congress debates next term is the creation of a US Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Authority who would have the authority to manufacture (or more realistically contract with an existing drug factory to manufacture) any off-patent or generic drug whose price has increased more than a certain percent in the last year. basically any time a would be Shkrelli or Valeant tries to pull that "orphan drug " shiat we could flood the market and put them out of business. (I'd also go farther and give them the power to exercise "eminent domain" on drug patents and allow them to "buy out", at "fair market value" (as determined by a jury) the patents of prescription drugs when they are larcenousy priced


Much simpler:  Out of patent means out of patent.  Anybody can make it.  Since the drug has already been approved for human consumption, any new maker does not have to go through approval all over again, they just need their manufacturing process and end product inspected by the FDA like any other drug manufacturer.  If you develop a "new and improved" version of your drug, good for you--you can get a patent on the new version if you like, but the "old and lousy" version will still be in the public domain.  (I know that's not how it works now.  I'm saying that's how it needs to work.)

Second, allow the importation of any drug that has been approved in the USA, from any country on an approved list of "safe" countries with good health care systems.  (I know, that's a land mine.)  A clause in the law will require manufacturers to that sell their drugs at a substantially cheaper price outside the USA than inside the USA to allow "virtual re-importation".  If you are charging $1000 for a box of insulin pens in the USA, but shipping those same insulin pens to Canada or France or the UK or Germany and selling them for $200 a box there, then drugstore chains, HMOs, and any other entity that would be buying directly from the manufacturer can order crates of insulin "by way of Paris" or "by way of Toronto".  The crates won't have to actually go to those countries, or pass through customs, but they will go on record as sold through those cities at the foreign price before being shipped to the US buyer.  Of course this is utterly stupid and absurd, and my hope is that manufacturers will simply drop the practice of charging a higher price in the USA rather than do this.  If they opt to drop foreign sales so they can continue charging the insane US price instead, my hope is that non-US drug manufacturers will start production to meet the need, and then the first part of the law--importation of approved drugs from approved countries--will come in to play to drive the price down.

Third, if this is not already the case, anything developed at taxpayer expense needs to go into the public domain.  There used to people whose job was to pour over "NASA Tech Briefs" to see if there was any government-funded research that their company could use.  This needs to apply to everything, including medical developments.  Since the original autoinjector was developed for the Army in the seventies, that should be public domain and Americans should have a choice of six competing brands of cheap "Epi-Pen" substitutes, like Europeans do.  That's right Americans, Europeans do the "free market" thing better than we do when it comes to medicines!  (The drug inside the Epi-Pen is adrenaline, and it has been around for more than a century.)
 
2020-06-29 1:04:12 PM  
2 votes:
Trump is touting cheaper pharmaceuticals as an accomplishment of his administration, so clearly this is a mistake. Unless... he was lying?? Nahhh.
 
2020-06-29 12:57:33 PM  
2 votes:
They have forgotten the faces of their fathers
 
2020-06-29 12:53:41 PM  
2 votes:

Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.


No one is saying that, but if you think for a second that we the US Tax Payers did not already foot a portion of the cost of development, you are a fecking idiot

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020​/​05/26/taxpayers-paid-to-develop-remdes​ivir-but-will-have-no-say-when-gilead-​sets-price/

This "socialize the costs, privatize the profits" BS needs to stop right the eff now. The SOP of Big Pharma and other US Corporations using the US Consumer Market to offset their low ball prices in over seas markets needs to stop.

Anyone that thinks it's a-ok for a US Pharma Company letting American Citizens die because the Rx prices in the US are sky high while selling those same drugs for pennies on the dollar abroad is a sick piece of crap
 
2020-06-29 12:28:19 PM  
2 votes:
Not true.
It's $420 per vial, which is $2340 per patient.
Gilead Pricing Remdesivir At $2,340 Per Patient
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4356​1​84-gilead-pricing-remdesivir-2340-per-​patient
 
2020-06-29 12:18:01 PM  
2 votes:

Bazzlex001: And as it turns out, it is almost never a new drug because these companies don't spend any of their record profits on R & D, because it reduces shareholder revenues


Pharma companies spend billions of dollars on R&D. As a scientist at a small pharma company I am glad, or else I wouldn't have a job.
 
2020-06-29 11:40:51 AM  
2 votes:
If you lived in India, you'd get it for way cheaper.
 
2020-06-29 11:24:13 AM  
2 votes:
yes, I'm pissed
 
2020-06-29 4:05:06 PM  
1 vote:

Northern: I actually performed a market analysis. Basically there is a convenience "gap" in cost that is just narrow enough to be not really worth it for them to travel every month to the low cost region. For cheaper medication, it is clearly not worth it and 95% of Americans can't afford to spend $3k every month to pick up their foreign prescriptions. This person has a high earning spouse, so they could afford the $36,000 per year copay for the meds. Thanks to Obama and the ACA their copay went down to $50/month or $600/year.
If there were a cheap destination where US consumers could buy a years supply in one visit, they would probably do well.
It's amazing how we have illegal drugs which are cheaper and more abundant than 40 years ago despite insane penalties but legal life saving medicine is more difficult to get and is much more expensive.
/But single payer where parents don't have to slowly kill their children by rationing insulin would be communism.


But why is the medicine being sold at a lower price abroad in the first place?

This is what I believe is going on, feel free to shoot me down.  If pharmaceutical companies tried to charge the same insane price elsewhere that the do in the USA, the various national health services--large buyers with a fair bit of market clout, and even larger if several of them form a "buyers club"--would start soliciting bids from alternative manufacturers, with a guaranteed schedule of future purchases.  Remember, many of these drugs are already out of patent, and I don't think foreign courts would allow the "evergreening" bullshiat that US courts let them get away with.  Once those manufacturers had their alternate production of these medicines up and running, the US pharmaceutical companies would lose international market share forever, as the large buyers would like having a choice of sources.  Who knows, some US health insurance companies might even try to see how they could get in on some of this reasonably priced insulin, and they are not without influence in the US government themselves.  It would be a disaster, so the US pharmaceutical companies want to make sure it doesn't happen.  They keep the price of things like Lantus just low enough abroad to discourage any competing manufacturing from starting up.
 
2020-06-29 4:03:39 PM  
1 vote:

ketkarsa: "pricing a new medicine"??  They developed it in 2009.


I invented and patented a new drug in 2016 at my small company. It made it into phase 1 last year and should start phase 2 this year. It will not be approved until 2024 at the earliest. Drug development takes a lot of time.

I am a chemist at said company and made/designed the molecule. While I own stock it isn't "my" company.
 
2020-06-29 3:41:16 PM  
1 vote:

BMFPitt: flondrix: Much simpler:  Out of patent means out of patent.  Anybody can make it.  Since the drug has already been approved for human consumption, any new maker does not have to go through approval all over again, they just need their manufacturing process and end product inspected by the FDA like any other drug manufacturer.  If you develop a "new and improved" version of your drug, good for you--you can get a patent on the new version if you like, but the "old and lousy" version will still be in the public domain.  (I know that's not how it works now.  I'm saying that's how it needs to work.)

In what way is that not how it works now?  (Unless you're literally saying that any random person can sell generic drugs without serious QC oversight.)

There is a poorly conceived exception related to "orphan" patents, but fixing that is really easy.


A few ways.  I keep reading about only one company being "approved" by the FDA to manufacture a particular drug, even though the drug has been around for more than 20 years.  That may be the "orphan" patent exemption you are referring to.  You can get some time added on to a patent by coming up with a "new & improved" version of the drug; companies will keep making one minor change after another to the same drug, such as dosage, method of delivery, even color, getting an extension each time in a practice called "evergreening". Then there is something called "thicketting" I don't understand at all--maybe you can make sense out of it.

The ultimate coup is if you can come up with a new version of the drug, get a new patent on it, and through connections within the FDA arrange for the new & improved version to become the only "approved" treatment for the condition the original drug was intended to treat.  Ideally, the "original recipe" loses FDA approval just about the time it would have gone into the public domain.
 
2020-06-29 3:25:31 PM  
1 vote:

H31N0US: cretinbob: Wait, my bad. I gave some incorrect information
It only helps 47% of people if you are on oxygen, and the numbers of people it helps who are worse than that goes down rapidly

That's the study from Gilead. An independent study concluded it did nothing, but again, it didn't kill you outright so go for it.

Gilead's business model has always been making placebo caliber compounds and using their board of directors connections to commercialize them.

Not sure they've ever made an effective drug.


I'd call the cure for Hep C pretty effective.
 
2020-06-29 3:11:41 PM  
1 vote:
Simple answer: nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.
 
2020-06-29 2:06:36 PM  
1 vote:

Surpheon: I find your $9.6 a dose price a bit sketchy.


It is, given that it's a new drug. However, when it's $520 a vial here in the U.S., but $100 a vial outside the U.S. (6 vials are typically used for a treatment course), it's time for us to look at the clear abuses Big Pharma's enjoyed thanks to our easily-bought Congresspeople and the laws passed to turn us into a captive farking audience, paying to keep the rest of the world in cheap drugs.
 
2020-06-29 1:50:07 PM  
1 vote:

BMFPitt: flondrix: Third, if this is not already the case, anything developed at taxpayer expense needs to go into the public domain.  There used to people whose job was to pour over "NASA Tech Briefs" to see if there was any government-funded research that their company could use.  This needs to apply to everything, including medical developments.  Since the original autoinjector was developed for the Army in the seventies, that should be public domain and Americans should have a choice of six competing brands of cheap "Epi-Pen" substitutes, like Europeans do.  That's right Americans, Europeans do the "free market" thing better than we do when it comes to medicines!  (The drug inside the Epi-Pen is adrenaline, and it has been around for more than a century.)

As written that's a terrible, terrible idea.  And doesn't actually address the reason why we don't have tons of generic epi-pens like we should.

There's a much better version of this, but it depends on whether your goal is better health for everyone at a cheaper price, or stigginit.


The easiest option, of course, would be to have a single-payer national healthcare system with federal negotiation of drug prices and federally subsidized research, with access to patents for federally subsidized drugs available to all manufacturers.  Let the drug manufacturers pay for their own new boner pills, and the formulas for vaccines and antivirals and epipens can be sold at cheap prices to all factories.
 
2020-06-29 1:06:34 PM  
1 vote:

BMFPitt: cretinbob: That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.

Do you know how much hospital stays cost?  That's definitely a good deal based on those numbers.


That's not the point, and you know it.  The price of one thing should not be based solely on the cost of the thing it is replacing.

For example, I could eat a hamburger instead of lobster for dinner.  I would be just as full with the hamburger as I would with the lobster.  Does that mean that mean it's OK if the manufacture suddenly tripled the price of ground beef, using the excuse that "it's still cheaper than lobster"?
 
2020-06-29 12:42:50 PM  
1 vote:

ColonelCathcart: cretinbob: That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.

Feature. Not a bug.

And for reducing 3 days of hospitalization means bigger savings for the Insurance companies.


Maybe.
There are two studies. One from Gilead that shows possibly it has a small effect on some people who aren't terribly sick. Then there is another study that says it doesn't do shiat.

But again, if you had read the thread first, you would see I distilled my argument to the moral and ethical question of taking a drug you had been charging $9.60 for and jacking the price up to over $3000.
Because you see, ethics and morality are a big part of medicine. Kicking people out of the door as fast as you can to save money is an insurance company thing, not a health care provider thing.
 
2020-06-29 12:31:27 PM  
1 vote:

Magorn: One of the serious reforms I would like to see taken up in whatever Healthcare bill the Dem Congress debates next term is the creation of a US Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Authority who would have the authority to manufacture (or more realistically contract with an existing drug factory to manufacture) any off-patent or generic drug whose price has increased more than a certain percent in the last year.  basically any time a would be Shkrelli or Valeant tries to pull that "orphan drug " shiat we could flood the market and put them out of business.  (I'd also go farther and give them the power to exercise "eminent domain" on drug patents and allow them to "buy out", at "fair market value" (as determined by a jury)  the patents of prescription drugs when they are larcenousy priced


I don't think you understand what the root problems are if you think any of that is a workable solution.

It's like having an incredibly long and expensive system for doing building permits, then saying we need to set up a whole other bureaucracy to do cheaper finished basements.
 
2020-06-29 12:28:04 PM  
1 vote:

AdmirableSnackbar: cretinbob: Surpheon: This is freeing up expensive beds

No, it's freeing up cheap beds. People in ICU, the expensive beds, see little benefit.

This is straight up price gouging.
They were charging $9.60 before this.
What justifies them raising it to over $3000, morally or ethically?

Capitlism.


Captialism is neither moral nor ethical.
 
2020-06-29 12:23:28 PM  
1 vote:

cretinbob: That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.


Do you know how much hospital stays cost?  That's definitely a good deal based on those numbers.
 
2020-06-29 12:21:57 PM  
1 vote:

Northern: Magorn: Gheist: Moopy Mac: Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.

Relative to marketing costs, this is a true statement.

You don't know what you are talking about

Watch this, then get back to me :
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7909184/

Valeant Pharma, once Wall-street's favorite drug company opearated on a business model of buying hundred of smaller drug companies, slashing R&D budgets or eliminating them entirely, and then cranking the prices of the drugs they already had under patent

I also suspect significant price fixing of approved drugs.  We have a friend who takes a common daily cancer med that was approved in 1982 and is off-patent. There are two similar approved drugs which were also approved in the 80s and also off-patent.  The pharma company was charging the insurance company and our friend $120,000/year for these tablets which cost something like $0.10 per pill if that.  It should be $10 or $50  per year.
All three pharma companies charged nearly the same amount for their similar drugs almost to the penny.
But free market, amirite?


One of the serious reforms I would like to see taken up in whatever Healthcare bill the Dem Congress debates next term is the creation of a US Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Authority who would have the authority to manufacture (or more realistically contract with an existing drug factory to manufacture) any off-patent or generic drug whose price has increased more than a certain percent in the last year.  basically any time a would be Shkrelli or Valeant tries to pull that "orphan drug " shiat we could flood the market and put them out of business.  (I'd also go farther and give them the power to exercise "eminent domain" on drug patents and allow them to "buy out", at "fair market value" (as determined by a jury)  the patents of prescription drugs when they are larcenousy priced
 
2020-06-29 12:11:33 PM  
1 vote:

Surpheon: This is freeing up expensive beds


No, it's freeing up cheap beds. People in ICU, the expensive beds, see little benefit.

This is straight up price gouging.
They were charging $9.60 before this.
What justifies them raising it to over $3000, morally or ethically?
 
2020-06-29 12:08:56 PM  
1 vote:

cretinbob: Gheist: Drugs are totally cheap to develop and test. Doesn't cost much at all. Filthy pharma execs.

Gilead donated the entire current supply because it cost less than $10 for an entire 10 day course of treatment. That's what they were charging before. This is not a new drug, but thanks for playing.


And as it turns out, it is almost never a new drug because these companies don't spend any of their record profits on R & D, because it reduces shareholder revenues
 
2020-06-29 12:07:10 PM  
1 vote:

flondrix: cretinbob: This is not a new drug, but thanks for playing.

Actually, it is:
Remdesivir was originally created and developed by Gilead Sciences in 2009...the USPTO granted two patents on remdesivir to Gilead Sciences on April 9, 2019

Trust me, I am the first to scream when a drug that has existed since the 19th century packaged in an autoinjector developed for the US Army in the 1970's is being sold as a two-pack (so you have to throw them both away when they reach the expiration date) for over $400, but this drug really does fall within the scope of "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[ For now, anyway.


Yes but its not the only anti-viral based on the same ancestor that is proven safe for patients:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/14/g​i​lead-should-ditch-remdesivir-and-focus​-on-its-simpler-safer-ancestor/

Gilead is pushing the newest highest profit generation, but if we want to throw the kitchen sink at covid we should look at the easier to synthesize and ones with a longer safety history.
 
2020-06-29 12:00:03 PM  
1 vote:
Less than 500 dollars a dose, for a typical 5 day treatment to save your life?
Yeah, to me it's worth it.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2020-06-29 11:57:49 AM  
1 vote:
Gillead continues driving people to flee to Canada.
 
2020-06-29 11:55:56 AM  
1 vote:

cretinbob: That's a steep price to pay for 60% of people to maybe get 3 days cut off their hospital stays.


Actually it is probably cost neutral to slightly cheaper than the hospitalization (each day in a hospital is easily 1-2k). That is how drugs are all priced nowadays. Has nothing to do with R&D or manufacturing costs and everything to do with the maximum amount that can be justified.
 
2020-06-29 11:53:55 AM  
1 vote:

UncleDirtNap: Like I've said before, there should be 2 weeks a year when it's legal to hunt pharmaceutical execs. With a permit of course.


Why would the execs we are hunting need a permit?

Oh... I see. Do it all like 'a most dangerous game', but secretly outnumber the wealthy 1000 to 1. But... to keep it sporting, we give them an M-16 (original Vietnam issued model with the ball ammo and no cleaning kit.) The "poors" are each issued a daisy BB gun and a wrench.
 
2020-06-29 11:40:48 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.