The horrible cost of RX
Wife with diabetic and rheumatoid arthritis got a printout of the RX cost from her health insurance company for the past 9 months.
I nearly fell out of my chair!!!
The amount for 9 months is over $77,660.
The most expensive were, in round numbers:
Novolog................$ 7,500
Lyrica..................$ 5,800
Leflunomide..........$ 1,700
Victoza................$ 7,100
Levemir...............$ 9,600
Humira...............$44,800
The others were about $300 or less.
Prescription drugs are far to expensive and big pharma is loving the money. :twisted:
I nearly fell out of my chair!!!
The amount for 9 months is over $77,660.
The most expensive were, in round numbers:
Novolog................$ 7,500
Lyrica..................$ 5,800
Leflunomide..........$ 1,700
Victoza................$ 7,100
Levemir...............$ 9,600
Humira...............$44,800
The others were about $300 or less.
Prescription drugs are far to expensive and big pharma is loving the money. :twisted:
0
-
Sorry, Barz, Don Mc, you are up, on this one.
Feel free to explain to this Gentleman, how this is only "Capitalism."
But yet it is "Ignorance on Display." Got it.
Feel free to expound.0 -
In my case [taking Humira] it ain't capitalism. Capitalism means competition and choices. It is a monopoly as it is the only approved drug for my ailment. Abbvie the company that produces this drug has been able by tweaking it slightly over the years and receiving new patents to keep from having any generic competition. The current patents last until 2023. The current drug performs just like the original but has a different preservative. Still the same shelf life and performance but that was enough to extend the patents. They did get some competition in Europe so they cut their price there 80% and still make money off of it. By the way my treatment is twice the frequency of someone with arthritis, so I get the joy of a shot every week. Bob 0 -
BobJudy wrote:In my case [taking Humira] it ain't capitalism. Capitalism means competition and choices. It is a monopoly as it is the only approved drug for my ailment. Abbvie the company that produces this drug has been able by tweaking it slightly over the years and receiving new patents to keep from having any generic competition. The current patents last until 2023. The current drug performs just like the original but has a different preservative. Still the same shelf life and performance but that was enough to extend the patents. They did get some competition in Europe so they cut their price there 80% and still make money off of it. By the way my treatment is twice the frequency of someone with arthritis, so I get the joy of a shot every week. Bob
Yes, that all sounds incredibly fair. If you own stock in those Companies.0 -
When our representative clowns in DC get done playing politics. This Pharma issue along with healthcare in general should be the #1 priority. However since they are all in on the scam. In the form of campain donations from the Big Pharma and Health Care crime bosses. The cure for this issue may never come...
Like the drug peddlers. The aim is not to cure problems. Keeping folks diseased and the country in disarray is good for re elections thru kaos. While CEO's and senators get rich. We the people get the shaft.
The terrible costs of RX is a shame. Pray for redemption. Vote for change.0 -
My insurance carrier recently changed its preferred drug list . For the past 10 years I have taken Arthrotec for arthritis. Iit is a combo of two drugs , one a stomach acid buffer and the other component a type of NSAID .It worked well . My copay was $16.00. Under the new tier schedule they no longer cover this drug . Buy they do cover the two drugs which are components of the original . So now I have to have separate prescriptions for each of the components drugs . One at $16.00 and the other at $32.00. Wish I could understand the logic in their thinking 0 -
If everyone will do what I did, we can put those greedy doctors and their greedy pharmaceutical companies in their proper places.
I stopped all medications and I gave up doctors entirely.
If I sound bitter...it is only because I am.0 -
If everyone will do what I did, we can put those greedy doctors and their greedy pharmaceutical companies in their proper places.
I stopped all medications and I gave up doctors entirely.
If I sound bitter...it is only because I am.0 -
What makes it even far worse is that it is likely those medications will cost FAR less in Canada or Mexico. The way to get the prices down is to allow all meds that are legal here to be ordered from other countries with a prescription of course. 0 -
and for some stupid reason Activon, an OTC histamine dihydrochloride cream for arthritis and such was pulled off the market..cheap and a swipe of it lasted a day on my worn out and sore spots....really irritating that somthing simple that works gets yanked.... 0 -
spasmcreek wrote:and for some stupid reason Activon, an OTC histamine dihydrochloride cream for arthritis and such was pulled off the market..cheap and a swipe of it lasted a day on my worn out and sore spots....really irritating that somthing simple that works gets yanked....
Seems to be available thru amazon, or at cvs.....?0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:Sorry, Barz, Don Mc, you are up, on this one.
Feel free to explain to this Gentleman, how this is only "Capitalism."
But yet it is "Ignorance on Display." Got it.
Feel free to expound.
Capitalism operates under the law of supply and demand.
The pharmaceutical industry is a government manipulated market and is not truly a capitalistic situation for a number of obvious reasons.
That said, the act of charging what the marker will bear to maximize profits is how corporations are supposed to operate. This is what these companies are doing. Most have unique products, many under patent protection, and they charge a price that they believe will maximize their profits. Nothing evil about that in any other industry.
But health care is different.
Why?
There are some of these patent protected drugs that are the best solution for particular problems. They are not the only solution in almost all cases, but they are the best. In every other industry, people pay more for the best if they can afford it and want to pay for it. We all do not live in $ 10 million dollar homes with a $ 5 million dollar boat at our private dock, for example.
But health care is different.
Why?
Pharmaceutical companies spend billions to bring a drug to market before they realize a dime of return on that investment. In other industries, this money is recouped by charging much more than the incremental cost of production for each sale. Boeing and Airbus each spent billions developing the 787 and the A380 respectively, knowing they would show a profit until a certain number of jets were sold. Each jet therefore was sold for millions over the incremental production cost. These companies could not survive doing anything differently.
But health care is different.
Why?
Lastly, pharmaceutical companies sell product through distributors to end customers who buy them by choice. Whenever a certain drug can be even remotely tied to an unexplained hang-nail, it seem most of these customers will jump into a class action lawsuit to punish the company for developing a product.
Drug companies, however, seem to be expected to charge less for their product than they can because of some loyalty or largess to the end customer even when that end customer will turn around and stab them in back on the flimsiest of connections. Look at the talcum powder debacle, for example.
In such a hostile environment, other industries build this into the price of the product and move on.
But health care is different.
Why?0 -
Don I agree with some of your points. No other group of products have to meet the testing and scrutiny that prescription drugs do. Yes this drives the price up quite a bit, probably as much as the initial development costs. Usually once those costs have been recouped and huge profits made and the patent is getting close to expiring they make an insignificant change and get the patent extended. I believe in capitalism but not extended monopolies that stifle competition. Also what I want to know is how a government can take years to test and approve a drug [driving up the cost] and if there is a perceived problem the government has no responsibility. This also drives up the cost. As I referenced in an earlier post concerning Roundup, often the defense can't even use the FDA conclusions in their case. Bob 0 -
Maybe this is too simplistic, but .....
If I were Trump, I'd call Norman E. Sharpless, MD, acting commissioner of the FDA, into my office & say, "Ned, I want you to issue a new regulation saying that after 20 years, the patent on every drug expires & anyone can make that drug as a generic. If the drug company can improve the drug, they start from the beginning & get a new drug approval.
Is research expensive? Yes. But, drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.
No more excuses.
Neal0 -
BobJudy wrote:Don I agree with some of your points. No other group of products have to meet the testing and scrutiny that prescription drugs do. Yes this drives the price up quite a bit, probably as much as the initial development costs. Usually once those costs have been recouped and huge profits made and the patent is getting close to expiring they make an insignificant change and get the patent extended. I believe in capitalism but not extended monopolies that stifle competition. Also what I want to know is how a government can take years to test and approve a drug [driving up the cost] and if there is a perceived problem the government has no responsibility. This also drives up the cost. As I referenced in an earlier post concerning Roundup, often the defense can't even use the FDA conclusions in their case. Bob
I have heard the insignificant change statement a number of times.
If the 20 years expires on the original patent, cannot a generic of the original formulation be produced regardless if the developing company teaks that formula? I guess the question would be if it is an extension of a patent or if it is a new patent.
I spent a little time trying to find an answer, but came up with nothing.0 -
Would love to see the complainers delve into the costs of production and testing of these drugs and likewise see them foot the bill for it at risk with no guarantee of FDA approval.
Life is precious and has no price.
Medicine ain't free.0 -
One example that still bothers me is the little used sledgehammer chemotherapy treatment of last resort - the most toxic and persistent agent short of say plutonium...
The platinum and lanthinide based chemotherapy regimens - administered through direct infusion unusually via a port or dedicated pic line...
The fda requires starting with a virgin source of platinum with a high refinement purity - and apparently starting with raw pre dedicated to a single use and with a high specific refinement point is not only laborious and time consuming it's also expensive - something like 5 times the going rate for an ounce of platinum on the open market...
The Swiss came up with a method to use recycled platinum and remove any impurities that is both quicker to manufacture and cheaper to make - cutting the cost by 75%...
It's been approved and in use in Europe for over a decade and long running studies show little if any deviation of outcome or long term adverse side effects over the method used in the united states...
And to make it worse the Swiss used a recycling technique invented in the united states that allows the platinum in used scrapped catalytic converter to be recovered cheaply and without impurities in an environmental safe process - the American who invented it made a fortune and leases the rights to the process...
But the fda has not and will not approve this method - sighting oversight issues and quality control factors - patent issues and lobby activity tie things up...
Their is a chronic shortage of this stuff and they triage dispensing it and availability is limited...
The cost of this treatment in the US is beyond ridiculous - Canada and Mexico has adopted the European / Swiss regulatory standards but we do not.
We have more catalytic converters sitting in sweatpants that the rest of the world combined - and we can now recover the platinum and make a profit - we can remove any impurity...
But we don't.
And if I may be allowed an impertinent question???
How do pharmaceutical companies outside of the united states produce cheaper effective meds in large quantity and stay in business - if the financial model claims of the big US companies are true than those companies outside of the US should be bankrupt...
And I point to the epee pen scandal - price gouging episode as an example of avarice and greed and immoral behavior...
I hear and understand the cogent arguments and salient points of debate you have made - but I still believe the system is fundamentally flawed and broken.
Mike0 -
Barzillia wrote:It's interesting to watch people try to define capitalism, and then rely upon and expect a pure expression of what they want to see as some sort of standard.
Has it ever, anywhere, ever been anything more than the golden rule ?
As in, "Them what's got the gold, make the rules."
It is also interesting to see how some have come to a conclusion that they and everybody else should have anything to say about what others have invested and labored to produce.
Sounds like socialism to me.
Collectivism, you know.
Entitlement.
I'm shocked !
Shocked, I tell you.
Absolutely Scintillating.
I am shocked!
Shocked I tell you.0 -
gruntled2 wrote:What makes it even far worse is that it is likely those medications will cost FAR less in Canada or Mexico. The way to get the prices down is to allow all meds that are legal here to be ordered from other countries with a prescription of course.
I agree except that I?d worry about the quality from Mexico. Canada, maybe... But meds from Mexico? I?d worry...0 -
mrmike08075 wrote:One example that still bothers me is the little used sledgehammer chemotherapy treatment of last resort - the most toxic and persistent agent short of say plutonium...
The platinum and lanthinide based chemotherapy regimens - administered through direct infusion unusually via a port or dedicated pic line...
The fda requires starting with a virgin source of platinum with a high refinement purity - and apparently starting with raw pre dedicated to a single use and with a high specific refinement point is not only laborious and time consuming it's also expensive - something like 5 times the going rate for an ounce of platinum on the open market...
The Swiss came up with a method to use recycled platinum and remove any impurities that is both quicker to manufacture and cheaper to make - cutting the cost by 75%...
It's been approved and in use in Europe for over a decade and long running studies show little if any deviation of outcome or long term adverse side effects over the method used in the united states...
And to make it worse the Swiss used a recycling technique invented in the united states that allows the platinum in used scrapped catalytic converter to be recovered cheaply and without impurities in an environmental safe process - the American who invented it made a fortune and leases the rights to the process...
But the fda has not and will not approve this method - sighting oversight issues and quality control factors - patent issues and lobby activity tie things up...
Their is a chronic shortage of this stuff and they triage dispensing it and availability is limited...
The cost of this treatment in the US is beyond ridiculous - Canada and Mexico has adopted the European / Swiss regulatory standards but we do not.
We have more catalytic converters sitting in sweatpants that the rest of the world combined - and we can now recover the platinum and make a profit - we can remove any impurity...
But we don't.
And if I may be allowed an impertinent question???
How do pharmaceutical companies outside of the united states produce cheaper effective meds in large quantity and stay in business - if the financial model claims of the big US companies are true than those companies outside of the US should be bankrupt...
And I point to the epee pen scandal - price gouging episode as an example of avarice and greed and immoral behavior...
I hear and understand the cogent arguments and salient points of debate you have made - but I still believe the system is fundamentally flawed and broken.
Mike
I agree that our current system has big problems, and that there are individuals and companies that act out of greed and in what most of us would deem an immoral manner. I am just not yet convinced as most seem to be that this is the rule and not the exception.
What would be worse, IMO, would be a system whereby a government entity sets pricing for the products that a company develops. One report stated that the average cost to bring a new drug to market in 2015 was $ 2.56 Billion dollars. How do we fix a system that has this extreme upfront cost without either significant reward for that expense without reducing the incentive to undertake the effort?
The Epipen issue is a good example. That little sleazeball raised the price because he knew that the entry costs to develop a competitive product made it highly unlikely for a competitor to dot it. Much of these entry costs are the result of FDA regulation and requirement. So in a very real way our government contributes greatly to the not only the cost of drug development, but through that cost contribution, reduces competitive pressures that may otherwise drive the pricing down.
The reward has associated with the development of a new drug has to justify the risk of the capital investment or (obviously) that investment will dry up.0 -
mrmike08075 wrote:
How do pharmaceutical companies outside of the united states produce cheaper effective meds in large quantity and stay in business - if the financial model claims of the big US companies are true than those companies outside of the US should be bankrupt...
And I point to the epee pen scandal - price gouging episode as an example of avarice and greed and immoral behavior...
I hear and understand the cogent arguments and salient points of debate you have made - but I still believe the system is fundamentally flawed and broken.
Mike
Very well stated Sir.
I concur/agree.0 -
Lots of things tie together. All these Ambulance chasers looking to cash in on the "hang nail" side effect don't really scare the O's. They get paid regardless of how the company does and if the SHTF they have parachutes.
It only costs pennies to settle even some of the biggest lawsuits, Boeing isn't happy about the plane issues, but Exxon recovered from the spill Etc. Etc.
Bankruptcy is always another option the management gets paid, hell the last big one they even got bonuses from a bankrupt company!
Blame society, blame lawyers, blame politicians, blame capitalism, blame greedy execs of Pharm companies, blame people for unhealthy living habits, blame God if you want, but don't expect a major change LOL.0 -
Good thing you have insurance! Imagine letting someone you love suffer, deteriorate, or die because you couldn't afford the drugs!
I imagine if you are poor enough Uncle Sam takes good care of you through Medicaid, if you have a good job (fewer today) with healthcare or a Government job you are covered, if you are rich you are covered, but a self employed painter or something like that with some assets might just end up owing a zillion dollars, getting a judgement against them and losing their assets.
Too bad.Quick&Dead wrote:Wife with diabetic and rheumatoid arthritis got a printout of the RX cost from her health insurance company for the past 9 months.
I nearly fell out of my chair!!!
The amount for 9 months is over $77,660.
The most expensive were, in round numbers:
Novolog................$ 7,500
Lyrica..................$ 5,800
Leflunomide..........$ 1,700
Victoza................$ 7,100
Levemir...............$ 9,600
Humira...............$44,800
The others were about $300 or less.
Prescription drugs are far to expensive and big pharma is loving the money. :twisted:0 -
mogley98 wrote:Lots of things tie together. While we are celebrating and justifying the virtues of capitalism lets not forget it is only capitalist when it goes FOR the capitalist.
Remember all the trillions in bad bets (literally gambling) in investments of 2008 that Uncle Sam bought up with Tarp one of the biggest socialism plans of all, or Social Security and Medicare/medicaid pnzi schemes.
When Capitalism was due a fall Uncle Sam rushed in to save them, that isn't Capitalism.
All these Ambulance chasers looking to cash in on the "hang nail" side effect don't really scare the O's. They get paid regardless of how the company does and if the SHTF they have parachutes.
It only costs pennies to settle even some of the biggest lawsuits, Boeing isn't happy about the plane issues, but Exxon recovered from the spill Etc. Etc.
Bankruptcy is always another option the management gets paid, hell the last big one they even got bonuses from a bankrupt company!
Blame society, blame lawyers, blame politicians, blame capitalism, blame greedy execs of Pharm companies, blame people for unhealthy living habits, blame God if you want, but don't expect a major change LOL.0 -
Not to mention the collusion on price fixing among virtually all of the big Pharma companies. There will likely be very large fines, and should be jail time as well. 0 -
Is there really anyone here who can justify Truvada selling for over $1700/mo here & $8/mo in Australia? In many cases a company will buy a drug for a relatively small amount & then massively raise the price like with EpiPen. They can't use the excuse of development costs. If they can sell the same product in other countries for far less then we should at least be able to import them. As it is we are paying the development costs for the entire world. 0 -
I think one of the biggest causes for the high cost is insurance. Whether it is private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid. The private insurance companies don't negotiate with the drug companies as hard as they could. They just raise their rates to cover the cost. The govt doesn't seem to care much as they are just spending your money with Medicare/Medicaid. I did see on the news about the Trump administration finally addressing this a little bit. Capitalism is selling for what the market will bear. As a country we seem to be indifferent to these high costs so that's what they charge. I go on Medicare next year. We will have to continue our Blue Cross insurance because of the Humira. I already checked and it will be cheaper to pay for Blue Cross than to pay the higher copay with Medicare. Bob 0 -
When a drug patent expires, all the patent owner has to do is alter a single molecule of the drug to get a 20 year extension on the patent. It doesn't have to improve the drug, it just has be different from the original formula. THAT is what needs to change.
There are several excellent generic drug manufacturers in the US. However, many international companies use a huge company in India; I suspect that they don't pay the workers much.
Neal
EDIT: It gets complicated. The original manufacturer may file a challenge against a generic manufacturer with the FDA, & the legal costs may exceed potential profits. Insulin was developed in 1922, but it's only produced by 3 companies: Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, & Sanofi. Prices have risen dramatically in recent years. But, the potential profit isn't large enough for a new company to try to compete.
The US Congress could pass a law giving the FDA authority to issue price controls (like most other countries), but it's not in their financial interest.0 -
If you add up all the dough Uncle Sam doles out to the drug companies through Medicare/Medicaid maybe they would be better off just offering a reward for someone to invent a specific drug 0 -
nmyers wrote:When a drug patent expires, all the patent owner has to do is alter a single molecule of the drug to get a 20 year extension on the patent. It doesn't have to improve the drug, it just has be different from the original formula. THAT is what needs to change.
There are several excellent generic drug manufacturers in the US. However, many international companies use a huge company in India; I suspect that they don't pay the workers much.
Neal
If this is the case, can generic manufactures produce and sell the original formulation?
It seems the original formulation would no longer be patent protected.0 -
He Dog wrote:Not to mention the collusion on price fixing among virtually all of the big Pharma companies. There will likely be very large fines, and should be jail time as well.
Ssshhh, ...............................have you not been listening to Barz and Don Mc?
It is all "Capitalism."
They make very little money. (Barely scratching by, from what I hear.)0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments