A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

[Inisfallen]

Where the catechism is wrong is that government has no rights. It has powers, granted to it only by the consent of those it governs. In the US, this power is enumerated in, and limited by the constitution.

Jon

Surely natural law comes from a higher authority than does the Constitution?

That aside, the Constitution expressly grants to the government the authority to regulate commerce.

In any event, perhaps the message of the Catechism could be better expressed like this:

People, through their agent, the government, have the right to regulate economic activity for the good of all, and to safeguard the universal destination of goods.

How does that sound?

 

[exnihilo]

As already pointed out, the medication in question is for a relatively rare disease. So it is not that likely that other companies will step forward to manufacture a generic at a significantly lower price since there would not be much profit in doing so.

Besides the fact that I think there already are generics produced in a foreign countries it is precisely when there is profit to be made that companies step in and start producing something. The free market, if it was actually allowed to work, would solve this.

There is no generic version of Daraprim that passes FDA muster. It takes years of r&d and clinical trials to produce new drugs. What are patients supposed to do in the meantime? Die? Or are you suggesting that the FDA should put lives at risk by releasing a cascade of drugs that don’t meet minimum health and safety requirements? Why? All so one greedy punk can ravage the wallets of the sick and dying in the name of capitalism?

I certainly don’t claim to know much about pharmaceuticals, but if the drug had a patent shouldn’t that formulation have been published? Shouldn’t anyone be able to make exactly that formula? As a counter example Coke is not patented. The reason being is they would have to publish the formula. Then when the patent expires (of course it probably never would as they’d pay to have patent law changed for them) anyone could make and say they make Coke, specifically the formula.

I can’t imagine there is much work involved in making a generic. But if there is the problem is in regulation not the free market.

I think you overestimate the ‘protection’ offered by the FDA. it is a political bureaucracy. For instance Aspartame didn’t receive approval. Then Donald Rumsfeld, former War Secretary for Nixon became president of the company that made Aspartame. Apparently being an expert on war qualifies you to run pharmaceutical companies. Shortly after he became president the drug was approved.

 

[zz912]

I don’t think it works that way in the medical field or that we can talk about supply and demand for medicines in the same way we would for random tchotchkes at your local outlet mall. It’s the difference between what people want and what people need to survive whether they want it or not.

Supply and demand works, even for things we need to survive. Food is a need, and yet still operates based on supply and demand. This is no different. There are many medical procedures, devices and medicines that are extremely expensive and are limited in usage because of the price, even when they are needed to live. Many people forgo purchasing something that will extend their life by some time because it is too expensive and they don’t want to drain all their money (they prefer it to go to their family instead of extending their life for a few months or so).

In this case, supply has been unnaturally constricted to one supplier, and this has caused a distortion in the market. If there were more suppliers, this drug company could not raise the price.

 

[zz912]

As already pointed out, the medication in question is for a relatively rare disease. So it is not that likely that other companies will step forward to manufacture a generic at a significantly lower price since there would not be much profit in doing so.

They most certainly WILL manufacture the drug if they can sell it for $350/pill, which would be half the cost of the original maker. They’d make a huge profit AND help out people by providing it at a MUCH lower cost.

 

[zz912]

There is no generic version of Daraprim that passes FDA muster. It takes years of r&d and clinical trials to produce new drugs. What are patients supposed to do in the meantime? Die? Or are you suggesting that the FDA should put lives at risk by releasing a cascade of drugs that don’t meet minimum health and safety requirements? Why? All so one greedy punk can ravage the wallets of the sick and dying in the name of capitalism?

Now the story changes it seems. I thought this was a very old drug that is well known and has been used for years and years. So which is the real story?

 

[zz912]

Where the catechism is wrong is that government has no rights. It has powers, granted to it only by the consent of those it governs. In the US, this power is enumerated in, and limited by the constitution.

Jon

The CCC says the “political authority”, it isn’t referencing the federal govt.

 

[zz912]

I’m extremely pleased with the comment that you find “snide and rude”. The Pope is right now condemning the idolatory of Mammon - it’s not the time to add idolatory of man-made systems/ideologies.

And condemnation of capitalism’s excesses is NOT an endorsement of socialism or any other -ism. Apparently there’s*** no end ***to the costumes man can conjure up to dress up his greed in…

You were endorsing and promoting expansion of govt and socialism.

 

[zz912]

No it is not. Demand and supply cannot work the same way in medicine for many reasons, not the least being that we don’t get to walk up to a booth somewhere and tap on which illness we get, when and where we get it, or how it is treated…We can exercise choice with food or clothes or housing - but not with sickness. That’s why it’s immoral to simply leave sick people to the mercy of market forces.

It is sick and evil to leave sick people to the mercy of govt medicine and govt control, and leave them without the option of receiving the mercy of market forces.

Govt created this distortion in the market by limiting the supplier of the drug to one company. That distortion has allowed what we see here.

And medicine acts on the same principle as other items needed for life, like food. The most humane and beneficial thing you can do for people is allow the free market to provide their needs. If one supplier wishes to gouge them, in a free market they go to another provider. Monopolies are created and protected by govt.

 

[zz912]

Demand and supply will not solve this one because, if you read more about this drug, there is very little demand - as in, few people need it but those who do really need it. So let’s see your practical model for the free market bringing down the price of this drug - not simply your personal conviction that it MUST bring it down somehow!

Oh it most certainly will, and quickly. Supply has been restricted, and the price is astronomical to the cost involved. Every drug maker out there will want to run a batch of a cheap drug that brings in high profit. Then we will have several drug makers with product to sell who are competing against each other.

 

[Inisfallen]

You were endorsing and promoting expansion of govt and socialism.

“Socialism” seems to be a word that people throw around to describe anything a government does that they don’t like. It’s lost all meaning. It’s devoid of content. Around here, it seems to mean nothing more than “I don’t like that,” or “anything that is not absolute laissez-faire capitalism,” or “anything Obama says.”

As used here, “socialism” is not the “Socialism” the Church condemns (just as it condemns pure free-market capitalism).

It’s just a bogeyman.

Look, regulation of an essential (and very dangerous, if left unregulated) item is not socialism. It is something our Church specifically endorses (see my posts regarding the Catechism above).

 

[Inisfallen]

. . . the mercy of market forces.

Funniest thing I’ve ever read here at CAF!

 

[Theo520]

Yes, ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’ or ‘free market’ are terms thrown hard and fast, often misused. Appropriate regulation is essential for capitalism to thrive

“Socialism” seems to be a word that people throw around to describe anything a government does that they don’t like. It’s lost all meaning. It’s devoid of content. Around here, it seems to mean nothing more than “I don’t like that,” or “anything that is not absolute laissez-faire capitalism,” or “anything Obama says.”

As used here, “socialism” is not the “Socialism” the Church condemns (just as it condemns pure free-market capitalism).

It’s just a bogeyman.

Look, regulation of an essential (and very dangerous, if left unregulated) item is not socialism. It is something our Church specifically endorses (see my posts regarding the Catechism above).

 

[exnihilo]

“Socialism” seems to be a word that people throw around to describe anything a government does that they don’t like. It’s lost all meaning. It’s devoid of content. Around here, it seems to mean nothing more than “I don’t like that,” or “anything that is not absolute laissez-faire capitalism,” or “anything Obama says.”

As used here, “socialism” is not the “Socialism” the Church condemns (just as it condemns pure free-market capitalism).

It’s just a bogeyman.

Look, regulation of an essential (and very dangerous, if left unregulated) item is not socialism. It is something our Church specifically endorses (see my posts regarding the Catechism above).

You are right. Much of the US government is more fascist i.e. a merger of corporation and state. The state exists to restrict competition for corporations. The corporation exists to promote the power of the state and make real its will.

Regulation is all about rent seeking.

 

[zz912]

“Socialism” seems to be a word that people throw around to describe anything a government does that they don’t like. It’s lost all meaning. It’s devoid of content. Around here, it seems to mean nothing more than “I don’t like that,” or “anything that is not absolute laissez-faire capitalism,” or “anything Obama says.”

As used here, “socialism” is not the “Socialism” the Church condemns (just as it condemns pure free-market capitalism).

It’s just a bogeyman.

Look, regulation of an essential (and very dangerous, if left unregulated) item is not socialism. It is something our Church specifically endorses (see my posts regarding the Catechism above).

You’re now trying to obfuscate from the reality that you were promoting increasing the size and control of govt in the drug market even more than it already is. Describing your promotion as trying to increase socialism is accurate and on point.

Don’t try to hide what you truly are proposing. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. And don’t try to hide behind the false premise that the drug market is not regulated already. Government regulation CREATED this situation. So obviously the problem is the govt regulation, and more regulation won’t fix it.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
. . . the mercy of market forces.

Funniest thing I’ve ever read here at CAF!

Suffering of people is no laughing matter. Time and time again we see people suffering under government oppression and socialism. There is no such thing as bureaucratic compassion. Leaving people to the “compassion” of bureaucrats is vile. Take a look at many South American countries who are suffering under socialistic bureaucrats. They can’t even get basic commodities in their grocery stores.

And people want to replicate that here, claiming they are “compassionate”.

 

[Inisfallen]

You’re now trying to obfuscate from the reality that you were promoting increasing the size and control of govt in the drug market even more than it already is. Describing your promotion as trying to increase socialism is accurate and on point.

No, it’s not. That’s ridiculous. You can should “socialism!” all day long (and that’s all you’re doing – shouting and ranting), but that doesn’t make it so.

Don’t try to hide what you truly are proposing. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. And don’t try to hide behind the false premise that the drug market is not regulated already. Government regulation CREATED this situation. So obviously the problem is the govt regulation, and more regulation won’t fix it.

I’m not trying to hide anything. Sensible regulation is a good thing, favored and endorsed by the Church. There’s no way around that – your position is un-Catholic and un-Christian.

And no, government didn’t create this situation. That’s silly. A greedy money manager did.

 

[Thorolfr]

Stunning. Comparing the companies that R&D then provide life saving and extending drugs to government bureaucrats that do virtually nothing, other than spend tax dollars.

The article I posted quotes this “greedy” guy as stating that many patients get the drug without charge because they can’t afford it.

Jon

Most useful new drugs do not get discovered by private companies that do R&D but rather by federal institutions like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by public universities, hospitals, and nonprofits that rely heavily upon government grants to do their research.

If you take prescription medications, thank a taxpayer.

That’s the take-away from an article being published in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the role of “public-sector research institutions” – think universities, hospitals, nonprofits and federal labs like the National Institutes of Health – in drug development.

A group of researchers from Boston University, the NIH and the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation set out to quantify the contribution of PSRIs [public-sector research institutions] toward development of drugs and vaccines that have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The task required them to spend a great deal of time with the FDA’s Orange Book, which details the patent history of all new drug applications that were ultimately approved. They also scoured news reports and company announcements and surveyed academic technology licensing officers to catch any other drugs they might have missed.

Altogether, they gave 75 PSRIs credit for inventing 153 new drugs that won FDA approval from 1970 to 2009. The NIH was responsible for 22 of the drugs on that list, and the University of California system came in second with 11. Rounding out the top five PSRIs were Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York with eight, Emory University in Atlanta with seven, and Yale University in New Haven, Conn., with six. Virtually half of the new drugs were developed for treating cancer or infectious disease.

And these weren’t just run-of-the-mill drugs – they were important ones. For instance, 46% of the drugs developed by PSRIs got priority reviews from the FDA (an indication that they offered a substantial improvement over existing treatments), compared with 20% of the drugs from the private sector.

In addition, the researchers wrote, “Virtually all the important, innovative vaccines that have been introduced during the past 25 years have been created by PSRIs.”

Public research institutions were also particularly good at identifying new uses for existing drugs. From 1990 to 2007, the FDA approved only 10 such requests; nine of them originated in PSRIs, according to the study.

Overall, the team concluded, “PSRIs tend to discover drugs that are expected to have a disproportionately important clinical effect.”

That’s your tax dollars at work.

articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/10/news/la-heb-drug-development-taxpayers-20110210

 

[zz912]

No, it’s not. That’s ridiculous. You can should “socialism!” all day long (and that’s all you’re doing – shouting and ranting), but that doesn’t make it so.

You seem awfully touchy and prone to outbursts when others properly describe your views.

I’m not trying to hide anything. Sensible regulation is a good thing, favored and endorsed by the Church.

No one opposes sensible regulation. The regulation that caused this problem, where a very old drug was given monopoly protection by govt, is not sensible. This drug shouldn’t be protected by monopoly, and if they want to charge $700/pill, other drug makers should be allowed to sell off-brand competing versions to drive down the price.

There’s no way around that – your position is un-Catholic and un-Christian.

Opposing govt instituted monopolies and favoring increased competition to lower consumer prices is anti-Catholic? Do tell. Could you cite some authoritative pronouncements or the CCC on these topics?

And no, government didn’t create this situation. That’s silly. A greedy money manager did.

He is only able to do so because his company is protected by govt granting him a monopoly on an old drug that has no business being protected like that. Do you know why there is zero chance of the price of Aspirin being raised to $700/pill (even though many people need it for their health conditions)? Because there is competition.

 

[JonNC]

=Inisfallen;13305993]Surely natural law comes from a higher authority than does the Constitution?

Sure. It comes from Supernatural law.

That aside, the Constitution expressly grants to the government the authority to regulate commerce.

though that is not a “carte blanche” power. It original intent was to prevent the several states from limiting commerce between the states.

In any event, perhaps the message of the Catechism could be better expressed like this:

People, through their agent, the government, have the right to regulate economic activity for the good of all, and to safeguard the universal destination of goods.

How does that sound?

That sounds fine, as long as it is within the enumerated powers granted to the federal government, and the enumerated of state constitutions within each state.

Jon

 

[seekerz]

Oh it most certainly will, and quickly. Supply has been restricted, and the price is astronomical to the cost involved. Every drug maker out there will want to run a batch of a cheap drug that brings in high profit. Then we will have several drug makers with product to sell who are competing against each other.

Supply had not been restricted by government. Supply is low because it is a drug that is not commonly needed therefore little is made and only by one company. Nobody is stopping others from making it - there just isn’t much of a NEED for it.