This is not the difficult to treat genotype : 1. However, in combination with Ribavirin and either a protease inhibitor or interferon will have a nearly 100% cure rate on genotype 1.
And no clinic trial, 55 years away nonsense either. Thats already been done.
$1,000 Pill For Hepatitis C Spurs Debate Over Drug Prices : Shots - Health News : NPR
Federal regulators this month opened a new era in the treatment of a deadly liver virus that infects three to five times more people than HIV. Now the question is: Who will get access to the new drug for hepatitis C, and when?
The drug sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) will cost $1,000 per pill. A typical course of treatment will last 12 weeks and run $84,000, plus the cost of necessary companion drugs. Some patients may need treatment for twice as long.
Hepatitis researchers call the drug a landmark in the treatment of this deadly infection. More than 90 percent of patients who get the new drug can expect to be cured of their hepatitis C infection, with few side effects.
This is not the difficult to treat genotype : 1. However, in combination with Ribavirin and either a protease inhibitor or interferon will have a nearly 100% cure rate on genotype 1.
So 1,000 dollars a pill or 1.99 for some garlic? Easy choice, fucking retards.
Clearly garlic is involved. They just aren't telling us.
PSN: Araxen, Xbox Live: Araxen II, WiiU: Araxen, Steam: Araxen
I though Magic Johnson already cured this?
I dunno, I'm still pretty scared...
Price is fairly high but overall a cure for disease here will save more money for US health system then the pills will cost. Curing 2.700.000 people in US alone would save huge amounts of money even at 84.000 per patient.
Rest of world will just make pirated version of drug like they always do.
Over all give these people a noble prize and billions in cash for what they have done here and celebrate the human triumph over another disease..
Why do hep c patients otherwise cost more than $84k?
Cause they die sooner and dont pay taxxes for 20 extra years and they also wrack up medical and welfare bills because of the disease.
All-cause and incremental per patient per year cost associated with chronic hepatitis C virus and associated liver complications in the United States: a managed care perspective: HCV costs double comparison non-HCV patient group
84k is about same cost as treating disease for 8-9 years. When you factor in welfare cost because of these people not being able to work, plus the lost tax revenue from them not working the 84k cost will be repaid in four to five year in most cases.
Last edited by Siddar; 01-06-2014 at 08:06 AM.
I wonder about reinfection.
So 84k per American is a fair price, but getting the treatment into the high hundreds / low thousands range for the developing world is still profitable. Hm.
If the porn isn't high res you can't get horny, but you can hate a guy at 1000 paces without a scope. That's human nature.
Gilead is really greedy to make their cost of pills this high. Most people will have to use the patient assistance programs to even get this treatment. Well, at least it's better than getting cirrhosis. :\
If you don't want to pay that much for a complete cure for one of the few remaining, one of the most serious, (previously) untreatable communicable disease to mankind, feel free to die instead
An amazing triumph of science and you niggers find a reason to complain about it
Son, I've worked in pharmaceuticals, in a company with one of the harshest drugs for Hepatitis C (Peginterferon alfa-2a), and it is about $1200/month. You are saying it is OK to charge someone $80,000 for a drug that will NOT work by itself for genotype 1, which requires the assistance of a booster (Ribavirin) and either a protease inhibitor (Bocepavir or Tolepravir) or the dreaded interferon. All of these combined are NO WHERE near the cost of cancer drugs, but it is still very high.
Add to the fact that Gilead is acting very greedy in that they will NOT collaborate with Bristol-Myer on their HepC drug, that when in combination, has a nearly 100% cure rate on even the toughest genotypes. Do they want that? Nope.
I would love to see a reputable citation of a drug company spending 'billions and billions' on R&D and getting nothing in return. Someone listens to the radio and TV too much. There's no such thing as zero return on on investment in the world of pharmaceuticals. There's no dead ends, only new avenues of research.
This coming from someone that's supposedly in a top-flight psych program? Scary.
Shit like this is why you see big pharma commercials that tell you big pharma is not evil.
Nobody's saying they should be NPO's. But this is exploitative. That's what "we were trying to find a fair price", the direct quote from the guys you're defending, that's what that quote MEANS. That's what he's saying and he's not being subtle about it. "We were trying to decide how much skin we have to leave on the mark before pitchfork laden villagers show up at our door".
In 50 years it won't matter so much. It'll be an all new set of assholes. So get in your TARDIS and tell us how the future is.
It's like when the BP guy said that the oil spill was terribly inconvienent. Sometimes these guys fuck up and actually say what they mean.
Last edited by Iannis; 01-07-2014 at 08:45 AM.
Kuriin, again, the universe you wish for does not exist. There is a universe (ours) where a cured for hep c is found and costs $80k for 20 years until generics enter the market, and there is a universe where new drugs are cheap and never found. Those are your only options
Look, drug parents last 20, sometimes 25 years iirc. Its not like they set the price and then everyone who can't afford it dies forever. Its 20 years of squeezing sick people to make most of their money, then it's hookers and blow for everyone else. 20 year waiting period for poor people to CURE MOTHERFUCKING HEP C? Let's be reasonable human beings here. Drug companies have to make money on their investments. Could they afford to charge a little less? I'm not the CFO of any of these companies and neither are you, but its probably safe to say yes, they could. But they're also a company whose goal is to ultimately make as much money as possible. That goal, which everyone likes to call evil, is also responsible for the discovery of the drug. The world is not black and white. Things are not all good or bad.
This pretty much sums you guys up, notably around 2:15:
Last edited by Dabamf; 01-07-2014 at 04:27 PM.
Research is expensive.
Most of the pharmas don't even research anymore because of not wanting to deal with it. You don't see Pfizer doing much shit anymore.
Patents last about 20 years. And lets be perfectly clear on this: several drugs, most of them in fact, have multiple indications on them allowing more people to buy them. Drug companies make MILLIONS, and even BILLIONS more in sales than they do in R&D. The pipeline is not as bad as you think, Dabamf.
This is also not the first time Gilead as decided to make their drugs expensive, to the point of pushing a lot of people out. The AIDS Foundation has commonly criticized Gilead's cost/pill for their HIV drugs (Complera, Sofusobivir, and Stribild).
In a year, won't we be able to order some generics from India for $30?
I have no problem with drug companies making money, but I do have an issue with what amounts to a monopoly on it, especially considering what a huge world-wide potential this has. What if Polio vaccines costs the equivalent of 100K back in the day? That shit would still be running rampant now (on the plus side there probably wouldn't be anyone alive in third world countries, either).
I'd be fine with looking at their balance sheet for this project and setting a reasonable profit margin for distribution (with allowances for R&D and average cost of failed potential drugs). This, to me anyway, is one of those time where the public good is paramount. The guy in the article comes off as a total prick, who basically spun "we get to charge whatever we want, bitches" to a slightly less dickish "we chose a price people would pay".
Since insurance companies are the ones who are going to have to pay for it, it's just a huge money grab from the system. Business as usual in pharma, and really sheds light on one of the big problems we have with our huge healthcare costs.
Except that it's so new, it will be on the non-formulary list for prescription lists that the insurance will require PegIntron/Pegasys and Ribavirin. The same thing happened with Incivek and Victrelis.
We have established the price is bellow the cost of the alternatives. So social and economic benefits even at price of 84k is not in question.
So what is the issue here that patents give a limited monopoly? Or that some people will make a fucking huge amount of money off this drug and that a given once because it will save the country overall fucking huge'er amounts of money by curing 90% of Hep C patients of the disease?
Having a monopoly on TVs or automobiles is not the same thing as having monopolies on life-saving drugs. That capitalists such as yourself can justify greed over saving lives is incomprehensible to me. There is MORE than enough give at $1000 a pill for them to recoup their investment (of buying the company who actually came up with the drug - a price that was already bloated because of allowing monopolies to exist) and turning a respectable profit. It never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself think 1) that humans ONLY work to get rich and 2) that if people only have the possibility to makes tens of millions in profits instead of billions, well shit, why would they bother?
I really see no difference between Apple making billions of there latest I product, the guy who wins a 100 million in lottery, and a comapny that cures hep C making tens of billion while saving society 100 billions in the process.
In the end it comes down to simple envy with your belief that making X amount is ok but making over X is wrong but having zero rational basis for your completely arbitrary X number.
Medicine is a common good, Apple tablets are not - Siddar is too stupid to know the difference.
Profit over people. Pharmaceutical companies doing it right.
What benefit is it if insurance decides not to cover it due to cost and most people can't afford it?
Where's Godwin when you need him? This thread is begging for a nazi analogy.
2. Argument for profit never applies to common good such as medicine or education. Yes, you should be able to charge whatever you want for toys which are optional to living. You shouldn't be able to gouge whatever you want from people who's options are either to pay whatever is being charged for the medicine or die. That's not free market. That's extortion.
3. Additionally, I never said you shouldnt be able to make a profit, so don't lie about my position. But the company shouldnt be able to charge $100,000 for treatment either. There is room for company to make a reasonable profit which isn't 40,000% profit margin, and for people get reasonable access to life-saving medicine.
I understand that you're too fucking stupid to understand this and that's OK. This is why this has been codified into law at the very basic level as price gouging laws.
This thread has become beyond saving in a matter of a day. Hep c is cured and people immediately start calling "overpriced!" and "monopoly!" The Louis ck quote applies perfectly: "how does the world owe you something you didn't even know existed 5 seconds ago"
Heres an idea: let's make them charge much less for the drug. We can cure the world of hep c. A pretty awesome outcome. Then when the next huge cure is discovered we ca--oh what's that, there won't be a next one because we stole the last one from its owners for the "public good"? You mean patents exist to encourage people to develop new things? What the fuck that's unheard of
And lol at polio guy. What if they charged 84k for polio? Well, they'd have made a shitload of money and polio would have existed for 20 extra years. Then the patent expires and generics say hello and the world is cured. What's that, patents expire? Who knew.
God damn evil pharmos making wonderful life saving drugs. I hate them
Your position is they should only be allowed to make X profit with X being a number you pulled out of your ass. Mean while you have no problem with government and and healthcare industry taking the 50 billion a year saving from this drug and in the case private healthcare sector adding that money to there profits for you know the common good service they provide.
Plenty of companies that provide public services are regulated, as they generally are monopolies, or with very little competition. They don't stop providing their services or expanding, and other companies still enter the markets. What exactly is their ROI here? By any measure 10% is phenominal if you have very low risk. If we allow for 15%, what does that make the cost of the drug? By anyone standards, 15% return will have investors flocking to them to create the next great drug. Just don't think that 500% ROI is "fair" in any sense or way.
X number is based on what a company needs to continue to expand and fund its operations without gouging its customers. It's hardly pulled out of ass.
Looks the the pharma industry isnt hurting for cash at all when they spend 13% of what they make on research and twice that number on marketing and advertising
No one will make new drugs at 15% ROI the drug failures will eat that profit completely.
Also investors wont flock to a 15% ROI on a drug that takes 10+ years to get to market just buy a 10 year bond and make 5% RoI with no risk that comes in every year.
Investors dont invest into drugs one by one - they invest into companies, and the share value (though related to drug performance) is not pegged to the revenue from a particular drug.Also investors wont flock to a 15% ROI on a drug that takes 10+ years to get to market just buy a 10 year bond and make 5% RoI with no risk that comes in every year.
How are you this dumb?
They also aren't a monopoly. There are other drug companies and nothing is stopping them from making a cure too, except, you know, its difficult. A monopoly would be if they are the only drug company in the world and even after patent expiration no one else can make it.
Do you guys have even a high school education?
2. Net revenue - net expenses = profit
calculate expenses out to 10 years
adjust the annual net profit to fund those expenses plus extra cash to provide cushion for extra expenses
use that to establish a maximum price you can charge per drug.
do you think all the bottled water companies in america can just get together and charge $10 for a bottle of water if they wanted to? price gouging laws exist for a reason, stupid.
here's a definition for you to review, after you go back and finish your GED: A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
here's another definition you might want to familiarize yourself once you finish up that GED: Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
So do you think all bottled water companies can get together in America and charge $10 per 20 oz bottle of water??
Seriously though, while the profit margins of pharma companies are absurdly high compared to most other companies, they're still in the realm of 20-25%. You can't just lop a zero off the price of all their new products and expect them to remain in business.
Tell me again what costs are being recouped by charging $84,000 for 12 weeks of treatment and $168,000 for the 24 weeks, when $80 per treatment is the point at which not only did the company recoup its investment, but also made a 100% profit on its investment?
LOL, you are such a retard.
Question for you: So do you think all bottled water companies can get together in America and charge $10 per 20 oz bottle of water??
God, you are fucking stupid
Its not fair, but its reality. Now, I don't think big pharma is totally on the level at all, as no industry makes 25% profit fairly, but claiming they're gouging at 10x-100x of a fair price is absurd.
Why do they want to charge $80K-$150K for a treatment that would cost $150 and still net them over 10 billion in profit?
Lets say we let them charge 80K for treatment, do you think they should drop their prices once they recoup their investment?
Last edited by Siddar; 01-08-2014 at 08:24 AM.
3.000.000 x 84.000 = 254 billion. 1000% ROI of 11 billion is 121 billion. So what I suggested is taking about 50% the potential profits from US alone and then walking away.
Is my fantasy that you dont think the amount of money i suggest is acheavible are that you don't think those involved would be willing to walk away at just a 1000% ROI?
Last edited by Siddar; 01-08-2014 at 08:35 AM.
I'm just laughing at your naivete. Also find the below statement funny, as you sit here deciding what a good profit is.
Also, stop bringing up Apple or any other fucking company that has jack to do with drugs. Live-saving drugs and consumer products will NEVER EVER EVER be the same thing. Ever.
It's not that I disagree with trying to find a fair price for the product. If they choose to put a price on this, which is legitimately their choice to make, they do deserve a fair one. I do disagree somewhat strongly that the price they have arrived at is fair and I find the method they used to arrive at the price (most likely, i'm not sitting in on fucking board meetings, but based on the way the spokesmen defend the price and the secondhand defenses of concept) most likely cynical, inhumane, and defined almost entirely by avarice.
Even the Jews.. the JEWS... said it was socially acceptable to kill a moneylender who charged more than 30%. They believed it enough to write it down. And that's just some dude selling money, not some dude selling life.
It seems that a disbelief in evil is often a selfish and convenient one. You never have to believe it's possible that you can do wrong.
The best trick the devil ever pulled.
Because they get jaundice a few times before they die and end up in the emergency room and then most likely an IMC for a few weeks.
I am okay with pharma companies recouping their development costs by charging premium prices for patented drugs as this profit engine directly impacts the entire research and development cycle. This, however, is so far beyond the cost of development that it really raises the question of how suitable the current patent system is and the lack of mechanisms for any sort of price regulation in exchange for governmental patent protection.
Furthermore the company in question did NOT develop the drug. They bought the rights to the drug when they acquired Pharmasset for $11billion and then shepherded it through the FDA approval process. Thus they are using the "well we paid $11Billion for this...we deserve to make money!!" as an excuse when they paid 86% over market value for the company in the first place.
At what point does one say that the patent holder has abused the social contract of the patent itself and is no longer due any legal protection?
I remember when this article came out last year saying that big Pharma hasn't developed many useful treatments lately. It's all about profit. Drugs companies putting profit ahead of medical discoveries, warn scientists - Health News - Health Families - The Independent
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Donald Light from the University of Medicine of New Jersey and Joel Lexchin from York University in Toronto say the situation has remained the same for 50 years. The incentives for drug development are wrong and have skewed the behaviour of the industry.
"This is the real innovation crisis: pharmaceutical research and development turns out mostly minor variations on existing drugs and most new drugs are not superior on clinical measures. [They] have also produced an epidemic of serious adverse reactions that have added to national healthcare costs," they say.
More is spent on marketing (25 per cent of revenues) than on discovering new molecules (1.3 per cent). Drug industry claims that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is £1bn and is unsustainable are exaggerated, they claim. Research and development costs did rise substantially between 1995 and 2010 by $34.2bn (£21.9bn), they concluded, but revenues increased six times faster – by $200.4bn.
Not to defend 1955717375727% profit margin or whatever it is, but the cost to Gilead will be slightly over 11billion because they still need to produce and QC test all the drug they make and pay off doctors to prescribe it still down the road when a generic is available.
All the "but medicine is different" people, here's a thought experiment. Don't answer because I'm done responding to this thread. I made a mistake and accidentally got into a real argument on the internet and now feel foolish for having done so. Just think about it for yourself. Say Apple spends x years and y dollars developing some kind of 3d touchscreen technology (like in Minority Report). Samsung reverse engineers it and creates their own, but patents prevent them from releasing it. Ask yourself (1)who owns the technology and (2) what are the patents protecting? If samsung can sell theirs right away, apple will still make buckets of money, after all. Finally, (3)why would that scenario be bad for the consumer in the long term?
If you can't comprehend the answer to that last question, stop here because your understanding is insufficient.
Final question: how is health care different from other things in a way that the reasoning for (3) no longer applies?
Again, I don't care about your answer. Once we adopt a position publicly we are committed to defending it. So don't defend it. Think about it for yourself
I find the markup of alcohol at bars and clubs more offensive than the mark up of pharmaceuticals
Ya I performed his thought experiment a couple times and couldn't grasp why the Samsung stealing an Apple patent analogy destroys the 'medicine is different' argument. If anything it only reinforced the fact that the production of life saving drugs is absolutely nothing at all like an electronics company that makes expensive toys for grown ups. I always thought Dabamf was a pretty bright and reasonable dude, but his posts in this thread are terribad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)