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

XeNoN89 · 22 Sep 2015 at 10:56

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?

Always laugh at my mates when they buy overpriced branded generic medicines like paracetamol or ibuprofen etc

Greebo · 22 Sep 2015 at 10:58

scorza said:
And this outweighs the argument that people will die sooner, or suffer increased discomfort as a result of the price hike?

so all life saving drugs should be sold at minimal profit margins then? There wont be any life saving drugs if you did that.

Greebo · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:00

XeNoN89 said:
Always laugh at my mates when they buy overpriced branded generic medicines like paracetamol or ibuprofen etc

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"

balky12 · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:00

Greebo said:
so all life saving drugs should be sold at minimal profit margins then? There wont be any life saving drugs if you did that.

HOW DARE YOU EVEN CONSIDER MAKING A PROFIT!!! IT'S HUMAN LIFE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!

:rolleyes:

balky12 · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:02

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"

Welcome to the fashion world... not that I can talk. I am a sucker for a bit of Ted Baker and Hermes

Greebo · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:04

Anyway this drug is out of patent so there will be generic alternatives which cost a fraction available.

Danthus · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:06

This isn't about profit, it is about the price hike.

Danthus · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:07

Greebo said:
Anyway this drug is out of patent so there will be generic alternatives which cost a fraction available.

So why increase the price then?

Roar87 · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:08

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.

So they make this Drug cheap, then they have no money to develop another Drug, guess who loses out?

dowie · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:13

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?

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.

Dj_Jestar · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:17

I'd like to see some input from the free market fanbase about this. Dolph, perhaps?

cheesyboy · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:23

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.

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.

The Dread Pirate · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:33

Pharmeceutical Company caught overpricing their merchandise... colour me surprised :rolleyes:

Greebo · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:49

OldCoals said:
So why increase the price then?

Cause, just like Anadin there will be some customers prepared to pay more than 10 times the cost of the generic ones.

Greebo · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:51

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.

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.

radar19 · 22 Sep 2015 at 11:59

That smugness. He knows exactly what he's doing and he's loving it.

mysticsniper · 22 Sep 2015 at 12:02

He is a greedy little scrote. The drug costs $1 to produce and he is charging $750.

I hope Hilary rips him a new one.

dowie · 22 Sep 2015 at 12:07

Greebo said:
Not got time to read it Im afraid until this evening.

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?

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.

[TFU] Thegoon84 · 22 Sep 2015 at 12:09

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?

Calabi · 22 Sep 2015 at 12:15

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?

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.