Martin Shkreli got arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.
His arrest had nothing to do with the pharma companies....

It was due to securities fraud.

Shkreli “engaged in multiple schemes to ensnare investors through a web of lies and deceit,” U.S. Attorney Robert Capers said in a statement.

Shkreli was charged with securities fraud and conspiracy. A second defendant, lawyer Evan Greebel, of Scarsdale, New York, was charged with conspiracy and also pleaded not guilty.
Another good article describing the fraud can be found on Bloomberg.
 
Last edited:
He was running a ponzi scheme.
 
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I hope they put him behind bars and throw away the key. The whole world is laughing at him. What an (_*_)!
 
His arrest had nothing to do with the pharma companies....

]Bloomberg[/URL].


Sorry, to me he should be arrested when he did this

"promptly raised the price from $13.50 to $750 per pill."

But off course, it is just me, many think it is okay.
 
While I think many would agree with you that raising the price is he did is not ok, unfortunately it is despicable but not illegal.

But inevitably, what goes around comes around and his 15 minutes of fame turned attention on him and I suspect was the start of his downfall.
 
While I think many would agree with you that raising the price is he did is not ok, unfortunately it is despicable but not illegal.

But inevitably, what goes around comes around and his 15 minutes of fame turned attention on him and I suspect was the start of his downfall.

+1
Funny how that happened.:)
 
While I think many would agree with you that raising the price is he did is not ok, unfortunately it is despicable but not illegal.
He's a scummy guy and his arrest is good news. But let's not lose sight of the circumstances that made his previous "price gouging" possible: He was largely immune to the threat of competition because he was able to purchase an FDA-guaranteed monopoly.

In part:
Daraprim is a generic, which means that the patent on the drug—a government-granted monopoly meant to encourage innovation—has expired and the relevant chemical structure (it’s called “pyrimethamine”) is in the public domain. Anyone could in principle come to market with a pyrimethamine drug identical to Daraprim. So what is it that Shkreli bought when he spent $55 million for the right to sell Daraprim? Easy question. He bought Daraprim’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. But why is that so valuable?
Bringing a copy of Daraprim to market would require filing an Abbreviated New Drug Approval with the FDA. The new formulation would be tested to make sure it’s really the same, and as safe, as the previously approved generic. The FDA is notoriously slow and the process is expensive. Probably not $55 million expensive, however. Shkreli was willing to pay such a huge sum because he could see that no Daraprim copies were in the regulatory pipeline, meaning that, for a time, he would have a monopoly and could reap monopoly profits by callously demanding exorbitant prices from patients who have no alternative to the drug. The scandal of Martin Shkreli’s profiteering tells us very little about capitalism, per se, but it does tell us a lot about the perverse market incentives that overzealous regulation can create.
“It’s easy to see that this issue is almost entirely about the difficulty of obtaining generic drug approval in the United States,” writes Alex Tabarrok, an economist at George Mason University who specializes in the political economy of drug approval. “[T]here are many suppliers in India and prices are incredibly cheap. The prices in this list are in India rupees. 7 rupees is about 10 cents so the list is telling us that a single pill costs about 5 cents in India compared to $750 in the United States!”
And we can't freely import the drug from India because--well, because of other laws/regulations.
 
I hope they grabbed his passport as a part of the bond.
 
He painted a huge target in himself by being such an @$#@$.
 
I just hope that the FDA looks at other cheap generics that are currently single sourced and does something to incentivize a competitor to enter the market because I bet there are a bunch of other sleaze balls out there trying to do what he did. Of course, the fact he'll likely be in the news for awhile and then (hopefully) in the slammer a while longer may discourage some (even though that's not what he's going to jail for).

There's a special place in he!! waiting for him I hope.
 
I just hope that the FDA looks at other cheap generics that are currently single sourced and does something to incentivize a competitor to enter the market because I bet there are a bunch of other sleaze balls out there trying to do what he did. Of course, the fact he'll likely be in the news for awhile and then (hopefully) in the slammer a while longer may discourage some (even though that's not what he's going to jail for).

There's a special place in he!! waiting for him I hope.

Someone has developed a generic for it.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daraprim-1-dollar-turing_5629a01be4b0443bb5637b35
 
His is only one of the many ways that pharma companies extract monopoly profits on the back of a broken regulatory system. Another is called "product hopping"

In the prescription drug market, a patent holder—usually the brand name drug manufacturer that developed the pioneer drug . . . has time-limited, exclusive rights to market its patented drug, allowing it to realize hefty profits. Upon the patent’s expiration or a finding of its invalidity, market competition replaces the previously lawful monopoly: Manufacturers of generic drugs (generic manufacturers) enter the market, and the incumbent brand name manufacturer may face a steep drop in profits and market share.

Brand name manufacturers anticipating the loss of patent protection may launch strategies to stave off competition from generic manufacturers (“generic competition”) and thereby maintain their high volume of sales. This Note investigates one new tactic, product hopping, that has recently emerged among brand name manufacturers and explores its potential for manipulating the pharmaceutical industry’s regulatory structure while undermining generic competition.

Product hopping brand name manufacturers (“product hoppers”) make a slight alteration to their prescription drug and engage in marketing efforts to shift consumers from the old version to the new. Generic manufacturers must follow the hop to the new version in order to realize and maintain a high volume of sales. The delay to generic manufacturers from developing a new generic equivalent and obtaining FDA approval to market it allows the product hopper to insulate itself from generic competition for several years.

Source: http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/108-6-Cheng.pdf

While Shkreli may be particularly loathsome, nobody in big pharma has clean hands.
 
His is only one of the many ways that pharma companies extract monopoly profits on the back of a broken regulatory system. Another is called "product hopping"

Source: http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/108-6-Cheng.pdf

While Shkreli may be particularly loathsome, nobody in big pharma has clean hands.
Thanks. The regulatory "stickiness" is a big problem that keeps drug prices high. It is exacerbated by problems with transparency and conflicting incentives in the marketing and supply system. Without these issues, "product hopping" would pose little problem, since patients and doctors/providers would be likely to choose the older (generic) version of the drugs. The "newer" slightly altered (and much more expensive) version would hold little appeal.
 
I don't buy that drug prices are high due to regulations.

The EU countries have much more stringent regulations and they don't have to pay such high prices.

A lot of pharmaceuticals, which are based in the EU, spend a lot lobbying the US govt.

Medicare Part D was written by a pharma lobbyist and includes the provision that prohibits the govt. from trying to negotiate volume pricing. It would have been a kind of single payer for drugs.

Of course, the lobbyists also made it illegal for all those seniors to hop on buses to Canada to buy the same drugs for a fraction of what they're charged in the US.

The politicians have chosen to take money from the drug companies than to look out for the rights of their constituents.
 
I don't buy that drug prices are high due to regulations.
Then . . .
Medicare Part D was written by a pharma lobbyist and includes the provision that prohibits the govt. from trying to negotiate volume pricing.
That's a law/regulation
Of course, the lobbyists also made it illegal for all those seniors to hop on buses to Canada to buy the same drugs for a fraction of what they're charged in the US.
Nope--the lobbyists can't make anything illegal. Instead, they got others to use the power of the state to deprive Americans of their right to engage in free commerce. . . Through a law/regulation. And they also got the government to forbid the importation of these cheaper goods from Canada to the US. . . through a law/regulation.

So, I think we agree that laws/regulations are driving up prices of pharmaceuticals.
The politicians have chosen to take money from the drug companies than to look out for the rights of their constituents
Yes, and while nobody has a "right" to inexpensive drugs, we are supposed to have a right to free association and to be free to make our own decisions about our welfare without government interference. If we had those rights in full, we'd have less expensive pharmaceuticals.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom