Preemie birth preventive drug spikes from $10 to $1,500

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310...DeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNsawNwcmVlbWllYmlydGg-

Apparently it's "Let's rape the patient" week over here.

 

Would not the sensible solution be tor regulate the manufacturers of the drug rather than to create a monopoly. Oh yeah, I forgot, that doesn't make money for the drugs company. Sucks to get ill, be pregnant or live in the USA right now. And we're heading closer towards an American system because?

 

*dons political hat*

well the err... the err.. American system is so much better... and err... cost effective! err... look at how heathly the err... population is in the US!

*takes off political hat*

Insane. But there again we have NICE who are hopeless at everything they seem to do or research eh?

 

NICE is important, as it allows the regulation of drugs, choosing cost-effective treatments as well as the ability to negotiate price on a national scale. NICE is good, and one of the biggest problems I have is that the government is intent on pulling back its most important role, so pharmaceutical companies can charge what they like and if one GP doesn't like it, they'll find another who will pay. With NICE it's take it or leave it. I know which I'd prefer.

 

I have a little more... discoloured version of them. They do a good job don't get me wrong, but some of the choices they make. Ouch.

 

I'm not claiming they're perfect, but extremely important. And as for some of the choices, at the end of the day, their remit includes, to a certain extent, putting a price on lives. That's never going to be popular (and if a choice personally affects you or your family, you'll hate them for it), but has to happen in the real world if you want cost-effective healthcare. Better NICE than be like the USA.

 

You know what for once I do agree. It's just some of the wierd things they sanction... and then the others they approve, I don't get. Such as giving a cancer drug that may extend the life of someone by 16 weeks against a drug that was already available over the counter. If I remember rightly.

 

Don't underestimate the cost of law suits. From the original story:

And FDA approval is no protection against those lawsuits. It is a temporary situation:

These are FDA hoops that add costs both for the approval process and the fact that obstetricians will start using this version more than the custom blend out of self preservation. They have their own malpractice cost issues already.

This is a drug that has already been removed from the market once based on the information in the original story so it stands to venture that it could again. FDA endorsed exclusivity and gunshy doctors are key factors in reacting to their respective incentives which have little to do with actual patient care.

You want a regulated product with presumed reduced risks, you have to pay for it.

 

What is the government thinking granting a monopoly to one company surely it would make more sense to sanction five or so so you at least get competition

 

More than likely, the monopoly granted serves as an incentive for companies to take the financial risk to fund the required studies. Would you spend millions of dollars on a process that resulted in turning your results over to an industry? Would investors? I wouldn't.

I agree, getting more than one company involved would serve to dilute the initial investment and establish competition much like ship merchants in the 19th century opted for investing in partial ownership of multiple ships over owning one ship outright protecting themselves from total loss.

Even if the FDA could propose such a situation, if they couldn't convince enough companies they won't lose their shirts for whatever reason it wouldn't happen. This drug has a long and roller-coaster history and you are dealing in obstetrics which are already riddled with an inhospitable legal environment. Plus the drug isn't that widely used, at least not yet.

7 years is not very long which is probably why the price per unit is so expensive. They must recoup their costs quickly. The irony is that if the monopoly was, say 20 years, the cost would drop because they would have much more time to recoup their investment but then people would gripe that a company had a monopoly for so long.

 

Another consideration is that the company is offering the drug to low-income patients at a low, or no-cost. Unfortunately, that means that the people who can afford the drug are going to pay that cost for them which is what has the insurance company's panties in a bunch.

 

it is sad how much good drugs cost in this country.. we have charities though that can cover the costs of the really outrageous ones if you can't afford it

think our hospitals are fine.. no waiting lists or anything- it's the health insurance premiums and the cost of drugs.. looking down the road, it kind of makes me sad how wreckless washington has been this last decade.. that includes obama

we have a lot bigger problems.. I saw bill gates wife with baby bushs wife talking about 1% of our total budget for vaccines in 3rd world countries.. they are trying to rid polio for good

it's great to see people still care, but then you see these crazy people talking about libya and why the us has to help.. is the un that useless? isn't that what they're their for or are they looking for another way to scam money like what happened with oil for food.. I mean really tits on a bull? sanctions that's it? do we have to do everything

we were in 2 wars and that didn't teach us anything about going into other countries? please I hope they think things through.. the last administration was out of control with it's long term goals- nation building while putting your own country in a hole while the greedy banks not only sank but we let all those white collar assholes go- noone went to jail.. heck they got bonuses! it's so beyond me how stupid- but hindsight is 20/20 let's learn from it

and really does it even matter anymore with the deficit we have.. all this talk about economic recovery and families are sleeping out in cars

good old boy system? I can see why the tea party exists, regular people are just fed up.. but they are going about it all wrong.. some reason they think it's muslims that caused all of this.. hope they wake up and see what's really happened

we are getting larry craiged in the bathroom.. I don't think he brought any lube and you aren't an undercover cop.. go larry.. get busy.. go larry.. your ass now looks like a mason jar

that's about as simple an analogy as I can think of.. pretty accurate imo

 

millions of dollars are pocket money in these companies. And if that was correct then everything would be a monopoly. what often happens in monopolies is that the company finds the cheapest way of producing the product and the raises the price as much as possible.
Why should they use a billion dollars on improving when they can use a few million on optimizing and then make even more money. There is no incentive for a monopoly to develop their products, only to find the best way of making the most money.

If companies was that scared of competition then why do we still have companies that invest towards 7 billion dollars?
The answer, to get an edge, you have to be the best, and therefore you invest and develop towards better products.

 

I agree with your point about investing and producing the best products. I have worked in a computer manufacturing facility that used intel products and was a development partner with intel in manufacturing components. If you don't think the company was focused on not only quality but also lowering costs of production while trying to get the highest price the consumer was willing to pay then I'm afraid that conflicts with my direct experience. Companies want to sell their products for as much as they can get, customers want to get the products they want for the lowest price. Competition provides choices to customers and drives costs down.

The monopoly here (like every other monopoly I can recall) was created by the regulating authority NOT the company. The company has absolutely no authority to dictate anything to either the doctors or pharmaceutical industry. This company had to compete along with everyone else making similar products. It was only at the point where the company wanted to obtain the approval of the FDA that it had to invest millions of dollars for the studies associated with the approval process. None of the other competitors did that and it stands to reason that none of the qualities of the product are any different from before the required studies were conducted, yet those costs had to be paid.

 

Yes it was caused by the regulator. But it was requested by the company: "KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis won government approval to exclusively sell the drug." The drug company did that because they saw the opportunity to make money, not because they wanted a safer drug. They had worked out that they could offset the cost of research and make a profit by getting exclusivity.

Nobody's saying either party is innocent. Each is at fault and the people getting hurt, as always, are the consumers. And as we know, and Nexxo et al have argued ad infinitum, there is no informed consumer or choice in healthcare. That's not how it works.

 

yeah I've heard of that eddie.. with the low income drug coverage.. but never actually seen anyone who gets that

what they get is either medicare coverage or a few got what they need through charities, who get their funding through drives

we have a really expensive plan that covers ours.. I dunno how even a rich person would be able to afford over 100k a year on meds.. I guess they figure you can't put a price on your life and the cost is a constant reminder of that

I see the drug co point of- well why would we develop these drugs if there's no profit in it.. but who can realistically buy these.. it's why our premiums are so high

and this specific drug looks like it's a one time treatment- so really these don't count.. I'm talking about the drugs used for chronic conditions

 

I'm not saying anyone is innocent and I'm not justifying the behavior, I'm just explaining it. People ask "how could this happen" and my comments are simply an attempt at just that. Yes they asked the FDA for approval, it's supposedly the most appropriate thing to do when producing medications that are prescribed by doctors in the US. And yes, before taking on the initial costs involved in satisfying the FDA for that approval, they are allowed by the FDA a status of "orphan drug" which was an pre-existing condition that the FDA had already established for situations like this for very valid reasons based on past experience, most likely.

As I said, it is reasonable to believe that the same drug that was being used for $10 a dose is the same drug that was subject to the testing and approved by the FDA and is now being sold for $1500. The drug is the same, the only thing that is different is the approval. The FDA is the regulating authority in this situation and has conducted this process thousands of times and should have a plethora of data of what has happened as a result, that is their whole purpose. To emphasize some words to lean some semblance of "blame" for this on the applicant for asking rather than the organization responsible for making the right call and whose whole charge is protecting the customer seems dubious.

That is why I made the point that if you want a regulated industry be prepared to pay for it. If I was worried about my safety, I could: learn martial arts, firearms training, qualify for a concealed weapons license or, hire a body guard. The safety comes at costs one way or the other I could either bear them incrementally myself or get someone else do who has already done it.

The product existed before, the same product exists now and will continue to be administered but at a dramatically higher cost. The only added value the customer is getting is the knowledge that it has been tested by the regulating authority (FDA). Could the company stand to make a mint off of this rather than continuing to produce it as a generic blend? Perhaps, but only after initially risking millions of dollars before reaping any return.

Hippoz, I'm pretty sure this is not actually just one dose but several regular doses along the pregnancy which is why the overall cost they quote in the story is in the neighborhood of $30,000.

Again, this is for seven years. After that, the price will drop dramatically whether KV Pharmaceutical manages to make their money back or not and the medical community will be better off for it in the long run whether it was worth all the money spent or not.

If you are interested in my personal opinion, I'm not a big fan of the FDA and would prefer for the drug to be produced as it was before. But I can't see demonizing a company for playing by the rules of the game even if I don't like the results. I don't think the cost justify the benefits but that's not my call and I don't have a wife with a premature pregnancy issue either.

 

I'm a premature baby (1 month) and i turned out fine with grades, puberty and stuff, so why take the drugs in the first place?

Still though, Capitalism at it's finest

 

I'm not an expert by any means, I only know what I have learned from the actual story but it seems to just increase the likelihood of carrying the pregnancy longer thus minimizing complications or large expenses in care immediately after premature birth.

It was capitalism at its best prior to the involvement of the FDA

 

Makes sense but because I'm with the NHS we don't have to pay those fee's, kinda, just through our taxes and all that jazz (God kill our PM if he introduces a mainstream private healthcare system!)

Although a full term pregnancy is ofc recommended