Drug's 5,000% price increase, where's the justification?

Greebo said:
Look at Anadin. £3.47 as a brand from the shops. Same drug as a tesco's value range is 23p. And they make a profit. So from this we can probably ascertain that the Anadin cost about 2p to make so about 17000% profit. I dont see anybody complaining about their margins?
Click to expand...
Always laugh at my mates when they buy overpriced branded generic medicines like paracetamol or ibuprofen etc :D
 
scorza said:
And this outweighs the argument that people will die sooner, or suffer increased discomfort as a result of the price hike?
Click to expand...

so all life saving drugs should be sold at minimal profit margins then? There wont be any life saving drugs if you did that.
 
XeNoN89 said:
Always laugh at my mates when they buy overpriced branded generic medicines like paracetamol or ibuprofen etc :D
Click to expand...

Thats the power of PR and marketing ins persuading you that their drug is "better" so worth the extra money.

If there were two identical cars except one had a Skoda badge and the other an Audi badge, you would still get people who would pay more for the Audi one cause its "better" :p
 
Greebo said:
Thats the power of PR and marketing ins persuading you that their drug is "better" so worth the extra money.

If there were two identical cars except one had a Skoda badge and the other an Audi badge, you would still get people who would pay more for the Audi one cause its "better" :p
Click to expand...

Welcome to the fashion world... not that I can talk. I am a sucker for a bit of Ted Baker and Hermes :(
 
Anyway this drug is out of patent so there will be generic alternatives which cost a fraction available.
 
estebanrey said:
The bit where he stares at the camera with that gurn on his face and says "I think profits are a great thing for maintaining your corporate existence" :(

Personally I think making life saving drugs as attainable as is possible is great thing for maintaining your human compassion existence.

But I guess that's what happens when you hire a former hedge-fund manager to run a pharmaceutical company.
Click to expand...

So they make this Drug cheap, then they have no money to develop another Drug, guess who loses out?
 
Greebo said:
Always the same in the pharmaceutical industry. They spend billions on research, then a few promising drugs go to trials and some are kicked out. Then a few go to human trials and get passed by the authorities and then the finally sell them and have a monopoly for 10 years.

Repeat.

Billions is spent every year on developing drugs which never come to market. The drugs which do then have to subsidise this. So what if it only costs $1 to make. You have to recoup all the money for the 100 which failed.

Look at Anadin. £3.47 as a brand from the shops. Same drug as a tesco's value range is 23p. And they make a profit. So from this we can probably ascertain that the Anadin cost about 2p to make so about 17000% profit. I dont see anybody complaining about their margins?
Click to expand...

You're just talking about the industry in general, have you read the article? He bought the rights to an existing drug that has been around for 62 years then hiked up the price of it.
 
dowie said:
You're just talking about the industry in general, have you read the article? He bought the rights to an existing drug that has been around for 62 years then hiked up the price of it.
Click to expand...

This ^ is the thing. They don't develop drugs, they've just bought a drug which is a monopoly in its market and pushed the price up to make money for the investors.

Presumably, the patent has expired on this 62 yr old drug, so a high price should attract new manufacturers. Though these guys could just lower their price back down and see off any competition by weight of branding. Potential new entrants know this, so probably won't bother. So we have a problematic monopoly situation - it's not a "free-market", it's capitalism.
 
cheesyboy said:
This ^ is the thing. They don't develop drugs, they've just bought a drug which is a monopoly in its market and pushed the price up to make money for the investors.

Presumably, the patent has expired on this 62 yr old drug, so a high price should attract new manufacturers. Though these guys could just lower their price back down and see off any competition by weight of branding. Potential new entrants know this, so probably won't bother. So we have a problematic monopoly situation - it's not a "free-market", it's capitalism.
Click to expand...

Not got time to read it Im afraid until this evening. So is this not a drugs company that has bought it then? Just an investment company? And all the profits to them and they have no intention of investing that money into new drugs? In which case, its morally wrong.

But if it is a pharmaceutical company and does develop new drugs then buying a drug off another manufacturer is making profit is fine. Happens all the time in the industry.

The inventor company of Anadin (paracetamol) isnt the current manufacturing company of the drug from memory. They sold the drug to somebody else years ago and they are reaping the vast profits from it now.

Does the article say how much it cost for them to buy it from this other company? I would imagine it was a substantial sum which will have to be repaid.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
Not got time to read it Im afraid until this evening.
Click to expand...

you're probably best off reading it before making a bunch of comments else you're just posting generic noise about the industry

So is this not a drugs company that has bought it then?
Click to expand...

it is a startup drugs company - I believe he does intend to invest in research etc..

but the point is this is very different to someone having invested in R&D wanting to get a return on that - it is pure speculation on something they've got a small monopoly over

I mean we've got regulations that stop someone from say buying the rights to supply water to some area and then charging everyone 2000 a year instead of 200. Buying up a 62 year old drug and using it as a cash cow to fund your new business is a bit dubious ethically regardless of any claims of what you intend to do with the cash.

This is the same guy who actively lobbied the FDA to not approve drugs being trialed by pharma companies his hedge fund was shorting.
 
If you think this is bad.... Wait until they bring in the international trade agreement, it will then mean that the big multinational companies can basically shut down any other supplier of a type of drug if it affects their profits. They’ll be able to charge what ever they want without any fear of come back! Sadly we live in a generation where profit comes before people

Is that the neo-liberal attitude you wanted?
 
Greebo said:
Always the same in the pharmaceutical industry. They spend billions on research, then a few promising drugs go to trials and some are kicked out. Then a few go to human trials and get passed by the authorities and then the finally sell them and have a monopoly for 10 years.

Repeat.

Billions is spent every year on developing drugs which never come to market. The drugs which do then have to subsidise this. So what if it only costs $1 to make. You have to recoup all the money for the 100 which failed.

Look at Anadin. £3.47 as a brand from the shops. Same drug as a tesco's value range is 23p. And they make a profit. So from this we can probably ascertain that the Anadin cost about 2p to make so about 17000% profit. I dont see anybody complaining about their margins?
Click to expand...

They spend more on marketing than they ever do on developing drugs.

This isn't even a pharma company, I highly doubt this guy will develop any new drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom