Meds Prices in the States

Status
Not open for further replies.

JTB.SDG

Puritan Board Junior
How is this legal? https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/11/health/drug-price-hike-moral-requirement-bn/index.html. If you don't have time to read the article, the head of a pharmaceutical company hiked up a box of antibiotics from (yes, from) over $400 to over $2,300. (he did so because he says it's a moral requirement for him to make as much money as possible). I live in Asia and I can get the exact same meds for anywhere between 95 cents and a dollar and 80 cents (https://medex.com.bd/generics/814/nitrofurantoin/brand-names).

I know it's illegial to bring meds into the US from the outside to sell them. But what about setting up some organization where you give them away for a suggested donation (of what the meds actually cost)? Any lawyers or business minded people out there? This is just insane.
 
The medicine they are selling for $2,300 is Nitrofurantoin USP. Does anybody actually take/need this? Can gladly bring some back and send to you for free.
 
You can buy basic meds from veterinarian suppliers and use for humans. We've done this before. Horse dosages just might be broken up into smaller portions.

Or just buy overseas and give them away if selling is illegal. I am also interested in the legality of setting up a network.

"I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can," Mulye told the Financial Times, "to sell the product for the highest price."

His God is definitely Mammon if his morality is such.
 
The medicine they are selling for $2,300 is Nitrofurantoin USP. Does anybody actually take/need this?
It is antibiotics for urinary tract infections. Due to the increase in antibiotic resistance, old drugs (like nitrofurantoin) are becoming fashionable again. This specific type is the suspension. The originator (by GSK), is selling in South Africa for about $4 a bottle.
 
They are also likely trying to rip off tax-payer dollars and insurance companies. By inflating their prices, they get more money from the government (i.e. Medicaid/Medicare) and other insurance companies.
 
The cost of manufacturing and distributing most pharmaceuticals is fairly low. The big expense for the drug companies is research and development. They put a ton of money into developing and testing the drugs before they ever get to market, and then they try to recoup their investment on the back end by selling the drugs for a price much greater than the manufacturing cost.

There's nothing immoral about that business model. In fact, it has brought many advances in medicine because it funds research. But it also accounts for the price disparity from country to country: since drugs can be sold at a very low price and still add incrementally to profits, drugs are seldom priced based on manufacturing cost and are instead priced based on what the local economy and government will allow. The companies count on free-spending markets like the US to fund their expensive research, while still selling their product for pennies elsewhere because they can do that with a cheap-to-produce product.

The end effect is that a handful of wealthy countries, and the US in particular, end up funding pharmaceutical research for the whole world. This is why our drugs cost so much. Any path out of the predicament would almost surely require US government action, which has been slow to come because it would either (1) threaten US domination of the pharmaceutical industry, (2) dry up funds for medical research, or (3) deprive people in poor nations of medicine. The first is politically hazardous, and the other two are morally troubling.

I have no problem with the rich paying for pharmaceutical research that ends up benefiting everyone. In fact, this seems to me to be our duty to the poor. But the US is not the world's only wealthy nation, and it seems to me that the cost could be spread out more evenly among first-world countries. But that is a political impasse that has yet to be solved.
 
The big expense for the drug companies is research and development.

Don't forget litigation expenses.

A few other things to factor in:

1. Many of the patented drugs are developed in connection with taxpayer funded universities, who set up the patent rights so that the taxpayers don't get any benefit - the money is siphoned off to benefit individuals and corporations.

2. The patent system in this country is broken. Creative companies can extend protection almost indefinitely by changing dosages, or methods of delivery, or recommended usages.

3. Some of the pricing is agenda driven. The maker of Epi-pen who jacked up prices was a left wing socialist who was trying to bring on single payer socialized medicine (while making herself rich). The left has never worried much about killing some children if it gets them the end result that they want. (She raised the price from about $50 to $600 for a two pack boosting company profits to over $1 billion a year) Her public justification? The packaging was redesigned and they had a new marketing campaign.

The politicians are getting too much money to ever address the issues of patent reform or tort reform, the two keys to the puzzle.
 
The cost of manufacturing and distributing most pharmaceuticals is fairly low. The big expense for the drug companies is research and development. They put a ton of money into developing and testing the drugs before they ever get to market, and then they try to recoup their investment on the back end by selling the drugs for a price much greater than the manufacturing cost.

There's nothing immoral about that business model. In fact, it has brought many advances in medicine because it funds research. But it also accounts for the price disparity from country to country: since drugs can be sold at a very low price and still add incrementally to profits, drugs are seldom priced based on manufacturing cost and are instead priced based on what the local economy and government will allow. The companies count on free-spending markets like the US to fund their expensive research, while still selling their product for pennies elsewhere because they can do that with a cheap-to-produce product.

The end effect is that a handful of wealthy countries, and the US in particular, end up funding pharmaceutical research for the whole world. This is why our drugs cost so much. Any path out of the predicament would almost surely require US government action, which has been slow to come because it would either (1) threaten US domination of the pharmaceutical industry, (2) dry up funds for medical research, or (3) deprive people in poor nations of medicine. The first is politically hazardous, and the other two are morally troubling.

I have no problem with the rich paying for pharmaceutical research that ends up benefiting everyone. In fact, this seems to me to be our duty to the poor. But the US is not the world's only wealthy nation, and it seems to me that the cost could be spread out more evenly among first-world countries. But that is a political impasse that has yet to be solved.

Jack, I understand what you're saying. Had the head of the Pharmo company in the article said something like that, I could stomach it. He doesn't say anything close to that. Just pure greed. That it's his "moral responsibility" to make as much money (for himself) as possible. Hence jacking up this antibiotic $400 to $2,300.

My sister and brother in law aren't necessarily scraping by but they are counting dollars. He has aesthma and they pay around $150-200 a pop (over $1,000 a year) for an inhaler you can get here for $3. I believe he even told me he takes 2 puffs a day instead of 4 (what the doctor had recommended for him) because it's just too expensive. In light of what I read in that article, this makes my blood boil.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top