What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight (1 Viewer)

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
Specialists in infectious disease are protesting a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection.

The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“What is it that they are doing differently that has led to this dramatic increase?” said Dr. Judith Aberg, the chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. She said the price increase could force hospitals to use “alternative therapies that may not have the same efficacy.”

Turing’s price increase is not an isolated example. While most of the attention on pharmaceutical prices has been on new drugs for diseases like cancer, hepatitis C and high cholesterol, there is also growing concern about huge price increases on older drugs, some of them generic, that have long been mainstays of treatment.

Although some price increases have been caused by shortages, others have resulted from a business strategy of buying old neglected drugs and turning them into high-priced “specialty drugs.” Cycloserine, a drug used to treat dangerous multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, was just increased in price to $10,800 for 30 pills from $500 after its acquisition by Rodelis Therapeutics. Scott Spencer, general manager of Rodelis, said the company needed to invest to make sure the supply of the drug remained reliable. He said the company provided the drug free to certain needy patients.

In August, two members of Congress investigating generic drug price increases wrote to Valeant Pharmaceuticals after that company acquired two heart drugs, Isuprel and Nitropress, from Marathon Pharmaceuticals and promptly raised their prices by 525 percent and 212 percent respectively. Marathon had acquired the drugs from another company in 2013 and had quintupled their prices, according to the lawmakers, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, and Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland.

Doxycycline, an antibiotic, went from $20 a bottle in October 2013 to $1,849 by April 2014, according to the two lawmakers.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association sent a joint letter to Turing earlier this month calling the price increase for Daraprim “unjustifiable for the medically vulnerable patient population” and “unsustainable for the health care system.” An organization representing the directors of state AIDS programs has also been looking into the price increase, according to doctors and patient advocates.

Daraprim, known generically as pyrimethamine, is used mainly to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasite infection that can cause serious or even life-threatening problems for babies born to women who become infected during pregnancy, and also for people with compromised immune systems, like AIDS patients and certain cancer patients.

Martin Shkreli, the founder and chief executive of Turing, said that the drug is so rarely used that the impact on the health system would be minuscule and that Turing would use the money it earns to develop better treatments for toxoplasmosis, with fewer side effects.

“This isn’t the greedy drug company trying to gouge patients, it is us trying to stay in business,” Mr. Shkreli said. He said that many patients use the drug for far less than a year and that the price was now more in line with those of other drugs for rare diseases.

“This is still one of the smallest pharmaceutical products in the world,” he said. “It really doesn’t make sense to get any criticism for this.”

This is not the first time the 32-year-old Mr. Shkreli, who has a reputation for both brilliance and brashness, has been the center of controversy. He started MSMB Capital, a hedge fund company, in his 20s and drew attention for urging the Food and Drug Administration not to approve certain drugs made by companies whose stock he was shorting.

In 2011, Mr. Shkreli started Retrophin, which also acquired old neglected drugs and sharply raised their prices. Retrophin’s board fired Mr. Shkreli a year ago. Last month, it filed a complaint in Federal District Court in Manhattan, accusing him of using Retrophin as a personal piggy bank to pay back angry investors in his hedge fund.

Mr. Shkreli has denied the accusations. He has filed for arbitration against his old company, which he says owes him at least $25 million in severance. “They are sort of concocting this wild and crazy and unlikely story to swindle me out of the money,” he said.

Daraprim, which is also used to treat malaria, was approved by the F.D.A. in 1953 and has long been made by GlaxoSmithKline. Glaxo sold United States marketing rights to CorePharma in 2010. Last year, Impax Laboratories agreed to buy Core and affiliated companies for $700 million. In August, Impax sold Daraprim to Turing for $55 million, a deal announced the same day Turing said it had raised $90 million from Mr. Shkreli and other investors in its first round of financing.

Daraprim cost only about $1 a tablet several years ago, but the drug’s price rose sharply after CorePharma acquired it. According to IMS Health, which tracks prescriptions, sales of the drug jumped to $6.3 million in 2011 from $667,000 in 2010, even as prescriptions held steady at about 12,700. In 2014, after further price increases, sales were $9.9 million, as the number of prescriptions shrank to 8,821. The figures do not include inpatient use in hospitals.

Turing’s price increase could bring sales to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year if use remains constant. Medicaid and certain hospitals will be able to get the drug inexpensively under federal rules for discounts and rebates. But private insurers, Medicare and hospitalized patients would have to pay an amount closer to the list price.

Some doctors questioned Turing’s claim that there was a need for better drugs, saying the side effects, while potentially serious, could be managed.

“I certainly don’t think this is one of those diseases where we have been clamoring for better therapies,” said Dr. Wendy Armstrong, professor of infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta.

With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim’s distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.

The switch from drugstores to controlled distribution was made in June by Impax, not by Turing. Still, controlled distribution was a strategy Mr. Shkreli talked about at his previous company as a way to thwart generics.

Some hospitals say they now have trouble getting the drug. “We’ve not had access to the drug for a few months,” said Dr. Armstrong, who also works at Grady Memorial Hospital, a huge public treatment center in Atlanta that serves many low-income patients.

But Dr. Rima McLeod, medical director of the toxoplasmosis center at the University of Chicago, said that Turing had been good about delivering drugs quickly to patients, sometimes without charge.

“They have jumped every time I’ve called,” she said. The situation, she added, “seems workable” despite the price increase.

Daraprim is the standard first treatment for toxoplasmosis, in combination with an antibiotic called sulfadiazine. There are alternative treatments, but there is less data supporting their efficacy.

Dr. Aberg of Mount Sinai said some hospitals will now find Daraprim too expensive to keep in stock, possibly resulting in treatment delays. She said that Mount Sinai was continuing to use the drug, but each use now required a special review.

“This seems to be all profit-driven for somebody,” Dr. Aberg said, “and I just think it’s a very dangerous process.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

 
If they can't eek out some profit from these drugs, there won't be any resources available for R&D, so our doctors wouldn't have 27 different statins to push on us and those all-expenses paid pharma-boondoggles in Maui would be so boring.

 
Yes. I don't understand price gouging on a generic from a business sense. Someone else will produce it now much cheaper, probably just for the goodwill it will generate.

 
From what I understand, generic drugs take a big ramp up to be able to produce them and this is such a low volume drug that no one feels that someone will step in and do that.

 
Yes. I don't understand price gouging on a generic from a business sense. Someone else will produce it now much cheaper, probably just for the goodwill it will generate.
How long does it take a different company to tool up production and distribution? 12 months? Probably have to be tested as well.

If the company can make 15X gross for one year in exchange for all future profits...they'll take that 8 days a week.

If the gov't is going to be so heavy on the demand side, I'm struggling to see how we can keep the gov't from greater involvement on the supply side.

 
Nothing like putting a bullseye on yourself just begging for government regulation.

From $1 per tablet to $750 per tablet.

Mr. Shkreli comes off as a real db.

 
Yes. I don't understand price gouging on a generic from a business sense. Someone else will produce it now much cheaper, probably just for the goodwill it will generate.
They explained this in the article. They put the drug on controlled distribution to make it hard for anyone to get a sample to reverse engineer.

 
proninja said:
Yup, government regulation of the free market would definitely be bad for the consumer in this case #sarcasm
There is no "free market" in the healthcare business.

Edited to add: I didn't want this to come off as a defense of what is going on. It's not. I just wanted to be clear that what we have now in healthcare isn't exactly market-driven. I'd also be the first to admit I don't really understand healthcare economics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We could save this country billions in healthcare costs if we set up a government entity to produce generic drugs once the patents expire that sold them at cost.

 
I seem to remember that to get pharma to support the ACA that drug price controls and intervention were legislated to be completely hands off. I guess we now see the fruit of that labor.

 
I seem to remember that to get pharma to support the ACA that drug price controls and intervention were legislated to be completely hands off. I guess we now see the fruit of that labor.
They also made sure Medicare wasn't allowed to use their buying power to negotiate prices

 
Hillary tweeted that she was going after these type of practices and it sunk the biotech sector in today's market

 
I used to work in "Big Pharma. I'm not defending these practices, but I will say that it's a lot more complicated than the average person thinks, and there are some 2nd-line impacts that people often fail to realize.

-In the case of these old, smaller market drugs, the reason they're expensive is because of the effort that goes into making small quantities. Manufacturing lines have to be set-up for the drug...the fixed costs of that goes into the overhead of that line's run...On large volume drugs (statins, etc) the costs are minimal per pill...on these low-volume drugs, the cost per pill can be very high. It's akin to a "custom" item. You pay for the overhead, not the actual item. If it were profitable for generics to do it, they'd have found a way, but at low volume, there's no money in it.

-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector. It's much harder for people to understand and grasp the R&D that goes into a drug, resulting in a pill that costs $200, than it is an iPhone that costs $500...but both have their share of expenses and challenges. The cost of every drug that a company TRIED to bring to market and failed is rolled into the cost of the drugs that made it. So for every pill you take, you're paying for some of the pills that didn't succeed.

-You can't just start capping the costs of these things via regulations...Let's face it. We have great drugs because there's profit to be had in discovering them. If you start limiting the profit, you'll stifle the advancement. It's sad, but it's true. The first thing that starts to get cut when a pharma company is squeezed on earnings is R&D.

-People view generics as these great "saviors" that come in and provide affordable medicine. Generics allow the consumer to buy cheaper medicine by not contributing at all to the development of new drugs (if anything, they hinder it). It's the classic example of people wanting what's best unless they have to pay for it.

I'm 100% positive there are counters to most of these...I'm sure folks have/will cover them. I just wanted to point out that it's not so cut and dry. This particular article seems a bit excessive, but ask yourself this: What if that drug wasn't profitable at the old price. What if the company HAD to charge the new price to break even. Would you rather them stop selling it altogether, leaving no viable source for the drug, or sell it at the higher price?

 
I used to work in "Big Pharma. I'm not defending these practices, but I will say that it's a lot more complicated than the average person thinks, and there are some 2nd-line impacts that people often fail to realize.

-In the case of these old, smaller market drugs, the reason they're expensive is because of the effort that goes into making small quantities. Manufacturing lines have to be set-up for the drug...the fixed costs of that goes into the overhead of that line's run...On large volume drugs (statins, etc) the costs are minimal per pill...on these low-volume drugs, the cost per pill can be very high. It's akin to a "custom" item. You pay for the overhead, not the actual item. If it were profitable for generics to do it, they'd have found a way, but at low volume, there's no money in it.

-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector. It's much harder for people to understand and grasp the R&D that goes into a drug, resulting in a pill that costs $200, than it is an iPhone that costs $500...but both have their share of expenses and challenges. The cost of every drug that a company TRIED to bring to market and failed is rolled into the cost of the drugs that made it. So for every pill you take, you're paying for some of the pills that didn't succeed.

-You can't just start capping the costs of these things via regulations...Let's face it. We have great drugs because there's profit to be had in discovering them. If you start limiting the profit, you'll stifle the advancement. It's sad, but it's true. The first thing that starts to get cut when a pharma company is squeezed on earnings is R&D.

-People view generics as these great "saviors" that come in and provide affordable medicine. Generics allow the consumer to buy cheaper medicine by not contributing at all to the development of new drugs (if anything, they hinder it). It's the classic example of people wanting what's best unless they have to pay for it.

I'm 100% positive there are counters to most of these...I'm sure folks have/will cover them. I just wanted to point out that it's not so cut and dry. This particular article seems a bit excessive, but ask yourself this: What if that drug wasn't profitable at the old price. What if the company HAD to charge the new price to break even. Would you rather them stop selling it altogether, leaving no viable source for the drug, or sell it at the higher price?
Problem is the R&D etc. isn't an excuse here. Look at the numbers. They showed an example where the production was identical year over year and then went down a bit in year 3, but the costs skyrocketed. If the cost in year 1 was X and there are no more R&D, then the manufacturing costs in year 2 wouldn't mean the price should be 10X.

 
stbugs said:
Fat Nick said:
I used to work in "Big Pharma. I'm not defending these practices, but I will say that it's a lot more complicated than the average person thinks, and there are some 2nd-line impacts that people often fail to realize.

-In the case of these old, smaller market drugs, the reason they're expensive is because of the effort that goes into making small quantities. Manufacturing lines have to be set-up for the drug...the fixed costs of that goes into the overhead of that line's run...On large volume drugs (statins, etc) the costs are minimal per pill...on these low-volume drugs, the cost per pill can be very high. It's akin to a "custom" item. You pay for the overhead, not the actual item. If it were profitable for generics to do it, they'd have found a way, but at low volume, there's no money in it.

-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector. It's much harder for people to understand and grasp the R&D that goes into a drug, resulting in a pill that costs $200, than it is an iPhone that costs $500...but both have their share of expenses and challenges. The cost of every drug that a company TRIED to bring to market and failed is rolled into the cost of the drugs that made it. So for every pill you take, you're paying for some of the pills that didn't succeed.

-You can't just start capping the costs of these things via regulations...Let's face it. We have great drugs because there's profit to be had in discovering them. If you start limiting the profit, you'll stifle the advancement. It's sad, but it's true. The first thing that starts to get cut when a pharma company is squeezed on earnings is R&D.

-People view generics as these great "saviors" that come in and provide affordable medicine. Generics allow the consumer to buy cheaper medicine by not contributing at all to the development of new drugs (if anything, they hinder it). It's the classic example of people wanting what's best unless they have to pay for it.

I'm 100% positive there are counters to most of these...I'm sure folks have/will cover them. I just wanted to point out that it's not so cut and dry. This particular article seems a bit excessive, but ask yourself this: What if that drug wasn't profitable at the old price. What if the company HAD to charge the new price to break even. Would you rather them stop selling it altogether, leaving no viable source for the drug, or sell it at the higher price?
Problem is the R&D etc. isn't an excuse here. Look at the numbers. They showed an example where the production was identical year over year and then went down a bit in year 3, but the costs skyrocketed. If the cost in year 1 was X and there are no more R&D, then the manufacturing costs in year 2 wouldn't mean the price should be 10X.
I get your point, and you're right...in this case, R&D isn't an excuse or an issue...but manufacturing overhead absolutely is.

There are costs associated with running a manufacturing line, costs to shift the line to produce a specific API, costs to set up the packaging equpment, etc. All these costs get allocated back to the product(s).

My point is that if this product was a blockbuster drug, where they needed hundreds of thousands of pills, the batch sizes would be large. The fixed costs associated with manufacturing would be large, but would be spread over hundreds of thousands of pills. In this case, the batch size is small...the fixed costs and set-up costs are spread over a much smaller number of pills, making the impact on the per-pill price higher.

We can't say that they are suddenly making a huge profit because it's possible they've been making this drug at a loss for years. They may have just "right-costed" the drug because the only other option is to stop selling it.

 
It's a 62 year-old drug that was being sold so cheaply there was no competition, presumably. So one producer upped the price in a big way. Since it's no longer a patented med, someone else will quickly pick up the slack and produce more priced less than $750. Eventually the market price will stabilize as supply meets demand.

 
It's a 62 year-old drug that was being sold so cheaply there was no competition, presumably. So one producer upped the price in a big way. Since it's no longer a patented med, someone else will quickly pick up the slack and produce more priced less than $750. Eventually the market price will stabilize as supply meets demand.
In theory, yes...but this thing has less than 10,000 annual prescriptions. There's only so much money to be had. I don't think you're going to see generics jumping into the foray to make a drug with such low volume. Even at a high price per pill, there's only so much money to be had.

It is a free market economy on the non-patent drugs, but when it's not a common med, it's almost akin to custom medicine to get these drugs. You have to charge a ton to even justify making them.

 
It's a 62 year-old drug that was being sold so cheaply there was no competition, presumably. So one producer upped the price in a big way. Since it's no longer a patented med, someone else will quickly pick up the slack and produce more priced less than $750. Eventually the market price will stabilize as supply meets demand.
In theory, yes...but this thing has less than 10,000 annual prescriptions. There's only so much money to be had. I don't think you're going to see generics jumping into the foray to make a drug with such low volume. Even at a high price per pill, there's only so much money to be had.

It is a free market economy on the non-patent drugs, but when it's not a common med, it's almost akin to custom medicine to get these drugs. You have to charge a ton to even justify making them.
The U.S. government should get into the generic prescription game and bring these to market at cost.

 
It's a 62 year-old drug that was being sold so cheaply there was no competition, presumably. So one producer upped the price in a big way. Since it's no longer a patented med, someone else will quickly pick up the slack and produce more priced less than $750. Eventually the market price will stabilize as supply meets demand.
In theory, yes...but this thing has less than 10,000 annual prescriptions. There's only so much money to be had. I don't think you're going to see generics jumping into the foray to make a drug with such low volume. Even at a high price per pill, there's only so much money to be had.

It is a free market economy on the non-patent drugs, but when it's not a common med, it's almost akin to custom medicine to get these drugs. You have to charge a ton to even justify making them.
You have provided some very thoughtful and intelligent answers, thanks!

 
-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector.
If companies can fire people and still get the job done they will - in fact they have a fiduciary duty to stockholders to do so.

 
It's a 62 year-old drug that was being sold so cheaply there was no competition, presumably. So one producer upped the price in a big way. Since it's no longer a patented med, someone else will quickly pick up the slack and produce more priced less than $750. Eventually the market price will stabilize as supply meets demand.
In theory, yes...but this thing has less than 10,000 annual prescriptions. There's only so much money to be had. I don't think you're going to see generics jumping into the foray to make a drug with such low volume. Even at a high price per pill, there's only so much money to be had.

It is a free market economy on the non-patent drugs, but when it's not a common med, it's almost akin to custom medicine to get these drugs. You have to charge a ton to even justify making them.
I didn't realize it was a so-called "orphan" drug they're talking about. That does change the economics... in such a way that regulation of some sort is justified, I think. Especially on such an old drug. There isn't that much r&D required on a generic.... not like the company has to roll out hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a generic. There are costs,, yes, but nothing like with developing a new drug. But if no one will compete and the one vendor effectively has a monopoly on that drug, then I think some regulation needs to take place to best serve the public's interest. Especially when you;'re talking about a generic drug. If the patent hasn't expired, then yeah... give the company a shot at recovering their investment, but once it goes generic... in a case like this one, regulate it.... and by that I mean make the company justify its price like utility prices get regulated. If they can justify a $750 price... fine, but "justify" in this regard is going to be with respect to cost, not with respect to market demand.

 
hey.....let's spend a #### ton on marketing even though you can only get the meds by going to your doctor and getting a prescription.

 
In theory, yes...but this thing has less than 10,000 annual prescriptions. There's only so much money to be had.
$750 x 10,000 prescriptions x 10 pills per prescription = $75,000,000

Do you think it costs anywhere near even $1 million to produce 10,000 prescriptions of this drug?

 
A lot of the old equipment I used to work for I guess can be related to this scenario as well. I used to work on analog instrumentation. This consisted of huge metal drawers with specialized resistors and capacitors along with many other compenents. If we ever had to replace a drawer, it would have to be custom made because none of the items were mass produced or produced anymore. Hence, the demand was extremely low. But almost every part cost upwards of six figures. Now we run almost extensively on windows. When something breaks we can just switch it out with a card that you can get from anywhere. So even though the analog technology is fifty years older than the technology we use now, it cost 100x more to use it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top