Drug Costs... Why?

[Bamaman]

My mother in law had afib and was poor. She let my BIL con her out of what little cash.she had. And she died when her.meds ran out.

My step daughter also had afib and was.on medicine--but was.without insurance. Rather than ask her boyfriend for money, she didn't take her meds. She died last Sept. 5th.

 

[RonBoyd]

My mother in law had afib and was poor. She let my BIL con her out of what little cash.she had. And she died when her.meds ran out.

My step daughter also had afib and was.on medicine--but was.without insurance. Rather than ask her boyfriend for money, she didn't take her meds. She died last Sept. 5th.

That is truly unfortunate. I believe that Walmart (and several others) has Warfarin and Atenolol on their $5/30 day list. I could be wrong but it was that way several years ago -- I told the pharmacist that I didn't have insurance and that's what they charged me until they (a year later) found out that I did have insurance. At that time Walmart's price was less than my co-pay through the same insurance carrier I have today.

Anyway, there is no reason anyone with this life-threatening affliction should be denied access to such low-cost medicine because of lack of funds. That is downright disgraceful.

 

[euro]

[-]You[/-] They have to pay for all that CONTANT TV Advertising somehow.... Most other countries do not allow drug advertising and thus their drug prices are lot more reasonable.

I agree, that is a significant problem. That said, advertising clearly works - or else they would not do it.
Used to be illegal in the US too, but congress decided otherwise sometime in the mid-90ies. Too bad

 

[euro]

Any number of reasons are thrown up in support....fake drugs, poor quality. People in Canada and Europe must be dying in droves due to fake drugs.

Of course, they don't. However, even relatively small numbers of frauds are a problem if YOU are the one who ends up being killed....

 

[MichaelB]

I agree, that is a significant problem. That said, advertising clearly works - or else they would not do it.
Used to be illegal in the US too, but congress decided otherwise sometime in the mid-90ies. Too bad

No federal law has ever prohibited advertising for pharmaceutical products.

 

[euro]

IIRC New Zealand is only other country that allows advertising of prescription drugs. Always meant to ask the doc if people asking "is ______ right for me" drove him nuts.

Do watch the national news at night; when the baby boomers die off there will be nothing to support national network news since it seems only drugs are advertised on these time slots.

Actually, in MY neck of the woods, ads by the lawyers peddling their services to sue pharmaceutical companies seem to outnumber actual drug ads 2:1 . Those are at least as reprehensible as (and in part to blame for) the high drug prices, IMHO

 

[euro]

No federal law has ever prohibited advertising for pharmaceutical products.

Technically, you are correct. However, FDA regulations kept a really tight lid on such ads between 1962 (first regulations implemented) until the nineties. So, the blame belongs to them, I suppose.

 

[razztazz]

Yes, I believe that the US is somewhat unique in the litigation possibilities. This drives up healthcare costs relative to other countries that don't allow such lawsuits or dramatically limit potential awards.

Supermyth

 

[MichaelB]

Technically, you are correct. However, FDA regulations kept a really tight lid on such ads between 1962 (first regulations implemented) until the nineties. So, the blame belongs to them, I suppose.

There was a relaxation of rules by the FDA in 1997. Just between 1990 and 1995, however, pharma spending on broadcast advertising rose 7X. No doubt a more flexible FDA after '97 contributed, but the this trend was well established long before that change.

Drug prices are high and continue to increase at a rate much higher than inflation because pharmaceutical companies have successfully created a model of "value pricing". That is, they help develop an awareness or sense that the pharma products contribute greatly to health, life quality and extension, and then price to that great value, without actually demonstrating that such a benefit actually exists. They engage the community of physicians as allies to support this effort.

 

[Fermion]

Well I will point out from my "is this possible" thread on a failing biotech that there is a lot of pain that goes into developing a drug, so some of these prices are just the powerball ticket you need to have to attract gamblers...er, I mean investors to that market.

The company I have been tracking has lost over $300 million dollars of investor money in the past 6 years and is nowhere close to getting a drug to market. Believe me, that if they ever do get something to market, they better charge more than $1 a pill! I am thinking they need to recoup a couple billion dollars just to have made the whole fiasco worth doing from an investment standpoint.

 

[pgiyer]

The high development costs and risk of complete loss of investment if a drug does not work out can justify high pricing on the ones which work out. What grates is the same companies sell these drugs at much cheaper prices outside the US. Examples are the ones for Hepatitis C. This is getting away with what one can when there is no hard negotiator such as a single payer on the other side.
Then there are the outrageous cases where a company buys up an old drug in which it had sunk no developments costs at all, and then jacks up the price like crazy. For example Epipen.

 

[Scuba]

Supermyth

Do you not think litigation is more prevalent in the US? Who do you think pays for it in the end?

 

[razztazz]

Do you not think litigation is more prevalent in the US? Who do you think pays for it in the end?

A very common rhetorical device.

C'mon now. Ask the rest of the question. Why essentially change the subject?

 

[Scuba]

A very common rhetorical device.

C'mon now. Ask the rest of the question. Why essentially change the subject?

Not intending to change the subject. The question was why drug prices are so high in the US. I'm suggesting litigation is a factor. For example, an LA jury just awarded a plaintiff $417M in a case against J&J, of which $347M was punitive damages. I don't think this happens in other countries with cheaper drug prices. Not saying it's the only reason but surely it's one factor.

 

[travelover]

Not intending to change the subject. The question was why drug prices are so high in the US. I'm suggesting litigation is a factor. For example, an LA jury just awarded a plaintiff $417M in a case against J&J, of which $347M was punitive damages. I don't think this happens in other countries with cheaper drug prices. Not saying it's the only reason but surely it's one factor.

I think the case you are citing was for talcum powder.

 

[Scuba]

I think the case you are citing was for talcum powder.

It is, but J&J is a pharmaceutical company as well. [emoji16]

 

[NW-Bound]

Sorry for getting off topic, but I thought there is no clear proof that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer. Also women who do not use talcum powder get cancer too. So, what establishes the link?

 

[Scuba]

I guess "clear proof" is in the eyes of the beholder but J&J has lost several cases where women got ovarian cancer and sued J&J because they didn't disclose a possible link to ovarian cancer. I don't know how good the scientific evidence is linking talcum powder to ovarian cancer, nor am I familiar with the details of J&J's defense.

 

[euro]

Not intending to change the subject. The question was why drug prices are so high in the US. I'm suggesting litigation is a factor. For example, an LA jury just awarded a plaintiff $417M in a case against J&J, of which $347M was punitive damages. I don't think this happens in other countries with cheaper drug prices. Not saying it's the only reason but surely it's one factor.

There is absolutely no doubt that litigation is a factor. Drug companies set as huge amounts of money to defend against lawsuits. Regardless of how safe a drug is, there will ALWAYS be lawsuits. So, when a drug is launched, a legal defense budget is already in place. Defending agains these suits is extremely expensive, even if you never loose a case.

 

[travelover]

There is absolutely no doubt that litigation is a factor. Drug companies set as huge amounts of money to defend against lawsuits. Regardless of how safe a drug is, there will ALWAYS be lawsuits. So, when a drug is launched, a legal defense budget is already in place. Defending against these suits is extremely expensive, even if you never loose a case.

Yea but........other industries face the same risks. When I worked at Megamotors, for example, we got sued constantly for all kinds of ridiculous things, but the price of cars has been relatively constant, especially when considering improved features and quality. I think the lawsuit defense is a red herring to divert criticism from obscene price gouging.

 

[Fermion]

Yea but........other industries face the same risks. When I worked at Megamotors, for example, we got sued constantly for all kinds of ridiculous things, but the price of cars has been relatively constant, especially when considering improved features and quality. I think the lawsuit defense is a red herring to divert criticism from obscene price gouging.

Hmm, well if you had stock in Takata I am sure you would feel a bit differently about lawsuit risks.

If we are upset that drug companies advertise too much in the USA, then we should also be a little upset about the lawyers advertising for drug lawsuit clients. If you watch any TV during the morning/early afternoon you are peppered with 1-800 bad drug commercials.

I think it all adds up. The high cost of drugs might be: 5% of price due to lawsuits, 15% due to short time period before generics take away your market, 50% due to cost of failed drug trials (99/100 failure rate is a lot worse than most car designs), 10% to compensate investors, 10% to pay the high salary of the PHD staff/researchers, and the rest is greed.

So we could cut maybe a few % by capping lawsuits except in cases of deliberate drug malpractice, we could cut some of the price by giving the drug manufacturers a longer period of guaranteed income before generics so they can recoup the development costs, we could approve more drugs by making the hurdle in drug trials lower (this probably would not be so popular but it would maybe make drugs a lot cheaper), and we could probably cut some of the salaries and greed.

 

[travelover]

Hmm, well if you had stock in Takata I am sure you would feel a bit differently about lawsuit risks............

And has the price of airbags gone up drastically? Still think it is a red herring. Let me import drugs from Canada from legitimate pharmacies and I'll shut up.

 

[ownyourfuture]

Part of the problems appears to be a selective application of capitalism. Let the markets dictate the price, but we will not allow you to import from other countries freely (as would be the case for most other goods). Any number of reasons are thrown up in support....fake drugs, poor quality. People in Canada and Europe must be dying in droves due to fake drugs.

Thank you.
And welcome to the forum.

 

[aja8888]

aja8888, I'm interested in Forteo because - unlike Boniva and other popular drugs - it is supposed to help the bone-building process, rather than inhibiting bone breakdown (which is why women get bone necrosis, since your bone cells are supposed to break down after a while, not hang around forever).

So if your DW does have success, and I very much hope she does, I hope you will return to this thread and let us know.

Thanks,

Amethyst

Amethyst, regarding your question on the success of the Forteo my DW has been on, we met with DW's doctor (endocrinologist) today and based on DW's latest bone scan, she (the Doc) thinks that DW has improved significantly and will be putting her on Prolia later this year. There have been no additional spinal compression fractures and her back seems to have been absent of the pain associated with the fractures (4 of them) and a cracked rib. This is after a period of 7 months to date since getting on the Forteo.

 

[FIREd]

Having had first hand experience in the drug development business, the answer to why drugs are so costly is quite complex. One factor is that it takes years (and many costly failures along the way) to bring a new drug to market. DW invented a drug which took over 12 years to move from conception to market (pretty typical time frame for a drug to go through development, clinical trials, and regulatory approval). With such a lengthy development process, it leaves pharma companies only a few years to recover their costs and make their profit before the patent expires and generics hop in on the band wagon.