So you are saying that rather than applying price controls we should take measures to make the pharmaceuticals market more free?
I agree!
I do not understand this price difference
- Thread starter brett
- Start date
I agree!
It is surprising.
I wonder if they don't consider the risk of increasingly antibiotic-resistant bacteria to be as big a problem as the US does?
Looking for an argument? Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor
ShokWaveRider
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Last edited:
Golden sunsets
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,524
kcowan. I take Advair Discus (250/50) too. The cost without insurance in the states is $1485 for a 90 day supply. Crazy. Fortunately with our insurance the copay is only $105. However, the generic of the drug was just released, in January of 2019. It is called Wixela Inhub Aer 250/50. The negotiated cost on that drug is closer to $1,000 and I now have a zero copay on that drug. Perhaps this generic would work for you as well. Check it out.
Also aren't drug costs in Canada a lot lower than in the US?
Help! I'm being repressed!
ShokWaveRider
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I would post that skit too, but some would consider it too Political...… Ahhhh. Those were the days...
I don't remember the age of knights.
That would be the dark ages, because there were so many knights.
jimandthom
Recycles dryer sheets
Well---whatever the solution is, it better not affect the value of my stock or lower my dividends!
Is there a sarcasm emo?
Is there a sarcasm emo?
And the evil drugmakers are at it again. Now they are attempting genocide on a virus, which some say is technically a living thing.
"– Donation Provides up to 2.4 Million Free Bottles Annually to Uninsured Americans at Risk for HIV –
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) today announced that it will donate Truvada for PrEP® (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg tablets) to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in support of national efforts to help prevent HIV and end the epidemic. This medication donation is among the largest ever in the United States and is part of Gilead’s broader ongoing initiatives to help ensure that everyone who can benefit from PrEP is able to access it. Gilead will provide to CDC up to 2.4 million bottles of Truvada® annually for uninsured Americans at risk for HIV. The donation, which extends up to 2030, will transition to Descovy® (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg tablets), if it is approved for use as PrEP.
Approximately 200,000 of the estimated 1.1 million Americans who are at risk for HIV currently receive Truvada for PrEP. Broader usage among at-risk populations is hampered by significant social and structural barriers, such as HIV stigma, homophobia, limited awareness of PrEP among providers and patients, and overall lack of access to healthcare. Gilead’s donation will support a greatly accelerated effort to reach these individuals, as well as create an opportunity for state and local partnerships to develop and implement protocols that are intended to ensure uninsured people at risk for HIV are given access to PrEP at no cost."
"– Donation Provides up to 2.4 Million Free Bottles Annually to Uninsured Americans at Risk for HIV –
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) today announced that it will donate Truvada for PrEP® (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg tablets) to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in support of national efforts to help prevent HIV and end the epidemic. This medication donation is among the largest ever in the United States and is part of Gilead’s broader ongoing initiatives to help ensure that everyone who can benefit from PrEP is able to access it. Gilead will provide to CDC up to 2.4 million bottles of Truvada® annually for uninsured Americans at risk for HIV. The donation, which extends up to 2030, will transition to Descovy® (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg tablets), if it is approved for use as PrEP.
Approximately 200,000 of the estimated 1.1 million Americans who are at risk for HIV currently receive Truvada for PrEP. Broader usage among at-risk populations is hampered by significant social and structural barriers, such as HIV stigma, homophobia, limited awareness of PrEP among providers and patients, and overall lack of access to healthcare. Gilead’s donation will support a greatly accelerated effort to reach these individuals, as well as create an opportunity for state and local partnerships to develop and implement protocols that are intended to ensure uninsured people at risk for HIV are given access to PrEP at no cost."
If it is approved... (hint, hint)
kcowan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Thanks for the tip. My point of the story was exactly that there was negligible difference. If the generic is made in the USA, it will be more expensive here too.
Golden sunsets
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,524
The pharma system is rigged all around. The sales pitch says that we are 'protected' by having access to only approved and supervised drug manufacturers. I suspect that we have major tax shifting done by producing or buying the drugs elsewhere in the world, importing them to the US, and selling them in a non-transparent system for big money. The medicine that I have been taking is manufactured in India, and available there for a fraction of the price. I could fly to India, purchase the drug, and return for considerably less than what the insurance company claims it costs. But of course, that would be illegal.
The drug was developed in the US, but the company that owns the patents are in Switzerland. Our laws, and congress-critters, protect these companies. I hope that they are paying taxes here and not slinking off into the other realms of the world with the cash.
To me, they have rigged the game. The laws that prevent folks from sourcing the same drugs from other parts of the world allow the drug companies and insurance companies to control the game. That needs to change.
The drug was developed in the US, but the company that owns the patents are in Switzerland. Our laws, and congress-critters, protect these companies. I hope that they are paying taxes here and not slinking off into the other realms of the world with the cash.
To me, they have rigged the game. The laws that prevent folks from sourcing the same drugs from other parts of the world allow the drug companies and insurance companies to control the game. That needs to change.
I'm hopeful that the team of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase will make a dent. Their venture is https://www.havenhealthcare.com/
"We believe it is possible to deliver simplified, high-quality, and transparent health care at a reasonable cost. We are focused on leveraging the power of data and technology to drive better incentives, a better patient experience, and a better system. Our work may take many forms, and solutions may take time to develop, but Haven is invested in making health care much better for all of us."
"We believe it is possible to deliver simplified, high-quality, and transparent health care at a reasonable cost. We are focused on leveraging the power of data and technology to drive better incentives, a better patient experience, and a better system. Our work may take many forms, and solutions may take time to develop, but Haven is invested in making health care much better for all of us."
kcowan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Thanks. My plan would only adjust my copay by the amount that it is cheaper, but when user reports are in, why not. Also the Canadian approval will take longer.
brett
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,925
A difference that we have found, besides price, is access. My spouse has purchased drugs in the past in Brazil (Rio) and Malaysia (KL) that would have been sold under control where we live and subject to frequent count/audit in hospitals.
In the case of Malaysia one drug store said no, they could not supply without a script order but directed us to another pharmacy in the Petronas shopping complex where we were assured they would sell the product to us. And they did....and quantity was no issue!
In the case of Malaysia one drug store said no, they could not supply without a script order but directed us to another pharmacy in the Petronas shopping complex where we were assured they would sell the product to us. And they did....and quantity was no issue!
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Because pharma is abusing the free market so they don't get to use it anymore. We regulate other monopolies and oligopolies... why not pharma?
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
That is part of why in Post#3 I suggested there be a single world-wide base price that could then be adjusted for transportation costs. That would force development costs to be spread across all users of the drug, not just the suckers in the US whose legislators refuse to allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices and as a result pay an outsize share of development costs.
Last edited:
Part of an older (2018) article about government subsidies for Pharma. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/376574-pharmaceutical-corporations-need-to-stop-free-riding-on-publicly-funded
.... and... if you thought the price of Xarelto or Eliquis was high @ $553.50/mo....
check out these:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/11/health/most-expensive-prescription-drugs/index.html
.... and... if you thought the price of Xarelto or Eliquis was high @ $553.50/mo....
check out these:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/11/health/most-expensive-prescription-drugs/index.html
Last edited:
I think the 2.6B figure is low actually.
I have watched several companies piddle away nearly that much trying to bring a drug from phase I to phase III and still not even succeed.
It is said that only one in one hundred drugs make it from phase I all the way to approval. If it cost just $100 million dollars to run one drug through the 4 to 7 years it takes to advance from pre-clinical, phase I, phase II, phase III trials, then the average development cost would be $10B per approved drug to account for the 99 failures.
It isn't that much, most likely because drugs are abandoned sometimes before they spend all the money in the later trials.
There is also some need of reward for a private investor who is willing to risk money on something which may not succeed, and if it does succeed is going to take 4 to 7 years to start generating a return, and even then has the clock ticking before it goes generic.
What we *could* do is fall back on the drugs already in the generic market instead of spending so much research money on new drugs. That would drastically reduce healthcare costs. Case in point is Hep C. Before all of the money was spent on the recent drugs, which have a 99.5% cure rate with few if any side effects there was already a drug available which could sometimes cure (interferon). I think it was something like a 50% cure rate if you took it for 24 weeks and had pretty horrible side effects. Was it worth the $11B of investor money it took to develop the current drug which cures in 8 weeks at 99.5% with no side effects? Dunno
I have watched several companies piddle away nearly that much trying to bring a drug from phase I to phase III and still not even succeed.
It is said that only one in one hundred drugs make it from phase I all the way to approval. If it cost just $100 million dollars to run one drug through the 4 to 7 years it takes to advance from pre-clinical, phase I, phase II, phase III trials, then the average development cost would be $10B per approved drug to account for the 99 failures.
It isn't that much, most likely because drugs are abandoned sometimes before they spend all the money in the later trials.
There is also some need of reward for a private investor who is willing to risk money on something which may not succeed, and if it does succeed is going to take 4 to 7 years to start generating a return, and even then has the clock ticking before it goes generic.
What we *could* do is fall back on the drugs already in the generic market instead of spending so much research money on new drugs. That would drastically reduce healthcare costs. Case in point is Hep C. Before all of the money was spent on the recent drugs, which have a 99.5% cure rate with few if any side effects there was already a drug available which could sometimes cure (interferon). I think it was something like a 50% cure rate if you took it for 24 weeks and had pretty horrible side effects. Was it worth the $11B of investor money it took to develop the current drug which cures in 8 weeks at 99.5% with no side effects? Dunno
jeffmete
Recycles dryer sheets
My wife on Medicare and supplemental, still uses GoodRx coupon for drugs instead of her insurance as it is sometimes cheaper. I haven’t a clue how GoodRx works, but before she turned 65 and we had high deductible and I picked up her inhaler and paid $450. I came home and my wife made me return it (who knew you could return prescriptions) as someone told her about goodrx, which had a coupon for $51! So I returned for $450 and bought back for $51!
Similar threads
