U.S. lawmakers demand information on EpiPen price increase

lukin2006

U.S. lawmakers demand information on EpiPen price increase

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/u-s-lawmakers-demand-information-on-epipen-price-increase?__lsa=9f3f-bd89

Wtf...

unsung

Thanks Government.

jeffbr

And the CEO of Mylan, Heather Bresch (maiden name Manchin) is the daughter of US Senator Joe Manchin, D - WV. That makes things a little uncomfortable with his Dem colleagues in the Senate who are calling for hearings. I'm sure that massive increase in price for the EpiPen goes directly to Heather's subsistence level $19,000,000 salary. Somebody's got to pay for it!

PJ_Soul

Pretty fucked up.

lukin2006

jeffbr said:

And the CEO of Mylan, Heather Bresch (maiden name Manchin) is the daughter of US Senator Joe Manchin, D - WV. That makes things a little uncomfortable with his Dem colleagues in the Senate who are calling for hearings. I'm sure that massive increase in price for the EpiPen goes directly to Heather's subsistence level $19,000,000 salary. Somebody's got to pay for it!

$19 000 000, how will she survive ... I'm starting to think greed should be a felony...

Free

If lawmakers do nothing, this will just be the beginning...

unsung

They did something, that's why it's an issue.

Free

Have they exactly stopped the company from jacking up the price? I know the stock market for the company has plummeted. But has anything been actually done yet.

unsung

They created a market for a product that wasnt an issue therefore their artificial monopoly just gave another CEO 19M.

Free

So what are lawmakers doing then?

Degeneratefk

This pissed me off. No God damn reason in hell why the prices of these things need to say rocket.

brianlux

The rich get more rich. Merica!

jeffbr

Let's be clear. This company is doing a shameful thing, raising the price for a medication that many, many people need. Let's also understand that the government created the regulatory environment that enables their monopoly, and blocks potential competitors from entering the market and driving down prices. I don't think we need more regulation to solve this one. Just better regulations. Or fewer regulations. But clearly the FDA and by extension this and previous administrations have enabled this scenario.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/want-to-reduce-the-price-of-epipens-appr

The Wall Street Journal detailed extensively as Clinton threw herself into the conflict that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made it very difficult for competitors to enter the marketplace and push prices downward. Epinephrine is cheap and EpiPens have been around for decades. Their prices should be trending downward not upward. But the FDA's complicated (and ambiguous) process of approving other drug delivery systems has kept competitors off the market. And to be clear, there are other companies trying to participate and demonstrate they can provide safe alternatives:

Free

jeffbr said:

Let's be clear. This company is doing a shameful thing, raising the price for a medication that many, many people need. Let's also understand that the government created the regulatory environment that enables their monopoly, and blocks potential competitors from entering the market and driving down prices. I don't think we need more regulation to solve this one. Just better regulations. Or fewer regulations. But clearly the FDA and by extension this and previous administrations have enabled this scenario.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/want-to-reduce-the-price-of-epipens-appr

The Wall Street Journal detailed extensively as Clinton threw herself into the conflict that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made it very difficult for competitors to enter the marketplace and push prices downward. Epinephrine is cheap and EpiPens have been around for decades. Their prices should be trending downward not upward. But the FDA's complicated (and ambiguous) process of approving other drug delivery systems has kept competitors off the market. And to be clear, there are other companies trying to participate and demonstrate they can provide safe alternatives:

This isn't about competition and capitalism, and making it about it does not solve the increasing fleecing of consumers through big pharma and healthcare costs.

It's pure garbage that the healthcare of Americans should be a competition!!! Are you kidding?! Only in AMERICA, do folks go into debt and bankruptcy due to being sick and being robbed blind by unregulated Big Pharma.

jeffbr

Free said:

jeffbr said:

Let's be clear. This company is doing a shameful thing, raising the price for a medication that many, many people need. Let's also understand that the government created the regulatory environment that enables their monopoly, and blocks potential competitors from entering the market and driving down prices. I don't think we need more regulation to solve this one. Just better regulations. Or fewer regulations. But clearly the FDA and by extension this and previous administrations have enabled this scenario.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/want-to-reduce-the-price-of-epipens-appr

The Wall Street Journal detailed extensively as Clinton threw herself into the conflict that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made it very difficult for competitors to enter the marketplace and push prices downward. Epinephrine is cheap and EpiPens have been around for decades. Their prices should be trending downward not upward. But the FDA's complicated (and ambiguous) process of approving other drug delivery systems has kept competitors off the market. And to be clear, there are other companies trying to participate and demonstrate they can provide safe alternatives:

This isn't about competition and capitalism, and making it about it does not solve the increasing fleecing of consumers through big pharma and healthcare costs.

Huh? If price has anything to do with it, and the company is setting the price, you might want to rethink your comment, as it seems to be out of touch with reality.

I am not trying to exonerate the big pharmaceutical company who is fleecing the consumer. But I'm also pointing out that many of the pro-big govt folks will be running to the govt calling for increased regulation as the solution to this problem, when it is specifically that govt regulation which has created the economic environment in which the company has a monopoly and can act in unethical ways. Epinephrine is cheap. The EpiPen is just a delivery mechanism. If the FDA got out of the way and let other makers of delivery systems into the market, prices would plunge.

mace1229

How many important drugs were only funded, tested and created because of the hopes of making millions? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it is at least several if not many. It sucks they get that greedy to this point, but I assume it pushes development as well. Who's going to risk tens of millions in research to just make a few hundred thousand?

eddiec

mace1229 said:

How many important drugs were only funded, tested and created because of the hopes of making millions? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it is at least several if not many. It sucks they get that greedy to this point, but I assume it pushes development as well. Who's going to risk tens of millions in research to just make a few hundred thousand?

Or almost all.

pjhawks

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

How many important drugs were only funded, tested and created because of the hopes of making millions? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it is at least several if not many. It sucks they get that greedy to this point, but I assume it pushes development as well. Who's going to risk tens of millions in research to just make a few hundred thousand?

Or almost all.

how many haven't been funded that could produce better results but less money? i think there are medical problems we could probably solve but managing medical issues is much more profitable than solving medical issues.

how do fuckers who make these types of decisions sleep at night?

from Masters of War but i feel it fits in this case as well.
"is your money that good, do you think it will buy you forgiveness, do you think that it should"

mace1229

There needs to be a balance. Without the potential of making a big profit, I bet we wouldn't have half the drugs we do. But who really needs a $19m salary?
From my experience health insurance was just as bad. My employer switched health coverage. My wife takes medication which is about 3 grand a prescription without insurance. So no way we can afford it if insurance doesn't approve. The new insurance threw us so many loop holes before they would cover it, she ended up going without it for 3 months.
Aside from the prescription, they required a doctor authorization (isn't that what a prescription is?). They gave us a number to provide to our doctor to call. We would call our insurance regularly to make sure it went through and all they would say is "it can take 2 weeks to process, so its not in the computer yet."
After the 2 weeks it changed to "no we don't have anything from your doctor. We gave you the wrong number last time, give him this number."
Another 2-3 weeks went by and same thing, but this time they said to fax it instead. Same thing, another 2-3 weeks went by before giving us a third and different number.
A few days later I called in to check on the status when I got the normal "it can take 2-3 weeks to process, so its not in our computer yet."
I unloaded on them on the phone, explaining how we kept getting the runaround and my wife and gone without her medication for 3 months now as a result, medication needed to control otherwise very debilitating arthritis, and ended the conversation with "if it isn't here tomorrow, you will be hearing from an attorney on my behalf." After than comment I was put on hold for about 30 seconds and she came back and said "it's on the way."
Ridiculous it had to come down to a threat. Our doctor said unfortunately they get that all the time, they drag their feet so they don't have to pay for expensive medication.
How do those people sleep too?

Cliffy6745

I work in pharma. There are major issues in pricing and a lot of that does come down to insurance companies being awful. This is not one of those though.

Everyone is correct in that without the massive profits, we would not have any of the outstanding drugs we have today, obviously.

I don't understand these price hikes at all. They are so shortsighted.

I am a massive proponent of performance based pricing.

Cliffy6745

mace1229 said:

There needs to be a balance. Without the potential of making a big profit, I bet we wouldn't have half the drugs we do. But who really needs a $19m salary?
From my experience health insurance was just as bad. My employer switched health coverage. My wife takes medication which is about 3 grand a prescription without insurance. So no way we can afford it if insurance doesn't approve. The new insurance threw us so many loop holes before they would cover it, she ended up going without it for 3 months.
Aside from the prescription, they required a doctor authorization (isn't that what a prescription is?). They gave us a number to provide to our doctor to call. We would call our insurance regularly to make sure it went through and all they would say is "it can take 2 weeks to process, so its not in the computer yet."
After the 2 weeks it changed to "no we don't have anything from your doctor. We gave you the wrong number last time, give him this number."
Another 2-3 weeks went by and same thing, but this time they said to fax it instead. Same thing, another 2-3 weeks went by before giving us a third and different number.
A few days later I called in to check on the status when I got the normal "it can take 2-3 weeks to process, so its not in our computer yet."
I unloaded on them on the phone, explaining how we kept getting the runaround and my wife and gone without her medication for 3 months now as a result, medication needed to control otherwise very debilitating arthritis, and ended the conversation with "if it isn't here tomorrow, you will be hearing from an attorney on my behalf." After than comment I was put on hold for about 30 seconds and she came back and said "it's on the way."
Ridiculous it had to come down to a threat. Our doctor said unfortunately they get that all the time, they drag their feet so they don't have to pay for expensive medication.
How do those people sleep too?

Insurance companies regularly abuse the prior authorization system, but in general, it is a very important step/requirement for consumers

Degeneratefk

Cliffy6745 said:

I work in pharma. There are major issues in pricing and a lot of that does come down to insurance companies being awful. This is not one of those though.

Everyone is correct in that without the massive profits, we would not have any of the outstanding drugs we have today, obviously.

I don't understand these price hikes at all. They are so shortsighted.

I am a massive proponent of performance based pricing.

When you say performance based pricing, do you mean if the drug works extremely well, it should cost more? What If the generic works just as well? Should thise prices increase as well?

Cliffy6745

mace1229 said:

How many important drugs were only funded, tested and created because of the hopes of making millions? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it is at least several if not many. It sucks they get that greedy to this point, but I assume it pushes development as well. Who's going to risk tens of millions in research to just make a few hundred thousand?

Every single one. I once worked on a drug that impacted 20k people in the united states that is now well over a $500 million drug because of how important it is over the entire course of a lifetime.

Degeneratefk

This whole thing reminds me of an episode of House MD. Season 2, I think, where Vogler wants house to introduce a new cholesterol product. House basically gives a brochure read speech that lasts all of 10 seconds. Vogler insists house say more. So house says the new drug was merely an expensive alternative to a cheap medication to which Vogler had added nothing more than an antacid. Instead of giving Vogler's impressive speech, House explained to the audience and a stunned Vogler that they should continue to use the old cheap drug, because it was just as good.

Any fans of house knows what Im talking about.

Cliffy6745

Degeneratefk said:

This whole thing reminds me of an episode of House MD. Season 2, I think, where Vogler wants house to introduce a new cholesterol product. House basically gives a brochure read speech that lasts all of 10 seconds. Vogler insists house say more. So house says the new drug was merely an expensive alternative to a cheap medication to which Vogler had added nothing more than an antacid. Instead of giving Vogler's impressive speech, House explained to the audience and a stunned Vogler that they should continue to use the old cheap drug, because it was just as good.

Any fans of house knows what Im talking about.

This is certainly a scenario that happens but is rarely the case with many new drugs. They are coming to market for a reason, a business and health reason.

People managed MS with interferons for years. They worked, but they caused flu like symptoms, injection site reactions, among many other somewhat tolerable side effects. Then orals come out (with their own tolerability issues for sure), and they are largely just as efficacious and are a significantly lower burden on the patient. Sure they are most expensive, but that goes with the territory of a better drug.

mace1229

Cliffy6745 said:

mace1229 said:

How many important drugs were only funded, tested and created because of the hopes of making millions? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it is at least several if not many. It sucks they get that greedy to this point, but I assume it pushes development as well. Who's going to risk tens of millions in research to just make a few hundred thousand?

Every single one. I once worked on a drug that impacted 20k people in the united states that is now well over a $500 million drug because of how important it is over the entire course of a lifetime.

Penicillin was an accident. Didn't cost anything to research, other than a lab mistake. Add that to the strange facts thread. But other than that, probably all.

mace1229

Cliffy6745 said:

mace1229 said:

There needs to be a balance. Without the potential of making a big profit, I bet we wouldn't have half the drugs we do. But who really needs a $19m salary?
From my experience health insurance was just as bad. My employer switched health coverage. My wife takes medication which is about 3 grand a prescription without insurance. So no way we can afford it if insurance doesn't approve. The new insurance threw us so many loop holes before they would cover it, she ended up going without it for 3 months.
Aside from the prescription, they required a doctor authorization (isn't that what a prescription is?). They gave us a number to provide to our doctor to call. We would call our insurance regularly to make sure it went through and all they would say is "it can take 2 weeks to process, so its not in the computer yet."
After the 2 weeks it changed to "no we don't have anything from your doctor. We gave you the wrong number last time, give him this number."
Another 2-3 weeks went by and same thing, but this time they said to fax it instead. Same thing, another 2-3 weeks went by before giving us a third and different number.
A few days later I called in to check on the status when I got the normal "it can take 2-3 weeks to process, so its not in our computer yet."
I unloaded on them on the phone, explaining how we kept getting the runaround and my wife and gone without her medication for 3 months now as a result, medication needed to control otherwise very debilitating arthritis, and ended the conversation with "if it isn't here tomorrow, you will be hearing from an attorney on my behalf." After than comment I was put on hold for about 30 seconds and she came back and said "it's on the way."
Ridiculous it had to come down to a threat. Our doctor said unfortunately they get that all the time, they drag their feet so they don't have to pay for expensive medication.
How do those people sleep too?

Insurance companies regularly abuse the prior authorization system, but in general, it is a very important step/requirement for consumers

I don't see the difference between prior authorization and a prescription. Isn't that essentially what a prescription is? How is it an important step, especially if it is regularly abused?

Cliffy6745

mace1229 said:

Cliffy6745 said:

mace1229 said:

How many important drugs were only funded, tested and created because of the hopes of making millions? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it is at least several if not many. It sucks they get that greedy to this point, but I assume it pushes development as well. Who's going to risk tens of millions in research to just make a few hundred thousand?

Every single one. I once worked on a drug that impacted 20k people in the united states that is now well over a $500 million drug because of how important it is over the entire course of a lifetime.

Penicillin was an accident. Didn't cost anything to research, other than a lab mistake. Add that to the strange facts thread. But other than that, probably all.

Good point.

Cliffy6745

And one more extremely important point, while current blame is entirely on the CEO and to a lesser extent insurance, it is a obviously larger systemic issue. For companies without a long term pipeline (I don't know what Mylan's pipeline looks like without looking it up), all Wall Street cares about is the next quarter's earnings. The Mylan CEO reports to shareholders, not patients or the public and she has a monopoly on that product. While I think it is very shortsighted, her point that she is running a for profit business is a valid point from her perspective.

Free

CEO Who Jacked Up Cost Of EpiPens Hospitalized By Bee Stings

Mylan CEO Heather Bresch was hospitalized earlier today after being attacked by a swarm of bees.

Bresch was walking through a park during her lunch hour when the bee attack occurred. A large crowd of people formed to watch as she tried to run from the swarm.

“She must have gotten stung like 100 times, mostly on her face,” said one shocked onlooker, who asked to remain anonymous. “Her face was puffed up all huge, she kinda looked like a muppet.”

Bresch, who is apparently allergic to bee stings, immediately suffered a severe anaphylactic reaction. However, none of the bystanders had an EpiPen on hand to inject Bresch with relief.

“Didn’t she raise the price to 600 bucks? Nobody got money for that,” said one Robert Selvidge, a bystander on the scene. “She kept pointing at her bag for some reason, who knows why? Was there something in there she needed? Maybe she had an Epipen in there. Whatever. If you ask me she got what she deserves.”

In previous years, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch raised the price of the life saving EpiPen by over 400% to $600. She also gave herself a pay increase of 600%. She is due to be paid $18.9 million in 2016.

Bresch is currently listed in critical condition in the intensive care unit at Mercy Hospital. Shares of Mylan were up more than 7 percent in trading Friday as news of Bresch’s troubles spread.

This may be satirical. And very karmic.

Cliffy6745

mace1229 said:

Cliffy6745 said:

mace1229 said:

There needs to be a balance. Without the potential of making a big profit, I bet we wouldn't have half the drugs we do. But who really needs a $19m salary?
From my experience health insurance was just as bad. My employer switched health coverage. My wife takes medication which is about 3 grand a prescription without insurance. So no way we can afford it if insurance doesn't approve. The new insurance threw us so many loop holes before they would cover it, she ended up going without it for 3 months.
Aside from the prescription, they required a doctor authorization (isn't that what a prescription is?). They gave us a number to provide to our doctor to call. We would call our insurance regularly to make sure it went through and all they would say is "it can take 2 weeks to process, so its not in the computer yet."
After the 2 weeks it changed to "no we don't have anything from your doctor. We gave you the wrong number last time, give him this number."
Another 2-3 weeks went by and same thing, but this time they said to fax it instead. Same thing, another 2-3 weeks went by before giving us a third and different number.
A few days later I called in to check on the status when I got the normal "it can take 2-3 weeks to process, so its not in our computer yet."
I unloaded on them on the phone, explaining how we kept getting the runaround and my wife and gone without her medication for 3 months now as a result, medication needed to control otherwise very debilitating arthritis, and ended the conversation with "if it isn't here tomorrow, you will be hearing from an attorney on my behalf." After than comment I was put on hold for about 30 seconds and she came back and said "it's on the way."
Ridiculous it had to come down to a threat. Our doctor said unfortunately they get that all the time, they drag their feet so they don't have to pay for expensive medication.
How do those people sleep too?

Insurance companies regularly abuse the prior authorization system, but in general, it is a very important step/requirement for consumers

I don't see the difference between prior authorization and a prescription. Isn't that essentially what a prescription is? How is it an important step, especially if it is regularly abused?

A prescription does not mean your insurance covers the product, a plan with prior authorization means the doctor needs to submit and verify with insurance that it will be covered prior to the prescription being granted. The goal of it is to ensure that doctors only prescribe drugs that are covered by a patient's insurance to minimizes costs

The abuse happens in what you saw with the insurance companies dragging the process out.

That said, it is better for the consumer to only be prescribed drugs that are approved by insurance prior to going to the pharmacist.