Topic: Lifesaving HIV drug increased in price by 5000% for no reason

[gazzalfc]

A $14 pill yesterday now costs $750

Basically the American Healthcare system is fucked

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/21/ceo-of-company-that-raised-the-price-of-old-pill-hundreds-of-dollars-overnight-calls-journalist-a-moron-for-asking-why/

Yes I know research + development is all important and that means money but stories like this makes my blood boil

[Chakan]

Needs to contract some form of infectious disease and then someone can charge him 1mil per pill

@MartinShkreli Why did you raise the price of Daraprim by 5000%, as reported?

@JohnCFierce It's a great business decision that also benefits all of our stakeholders. I don't expect the likes of you to process that.

Martin Shkreli is the asshole CEO.

[beardsley4ever]

What a c*nt.

[Canada Loves Anfield]

The CEO is all like

[AndyMuller]

Yeah what a dickhead he is.

[Twelfth Man]

Capitalism is working.

[Redman0151]

Using people's health and desperation for profit is fucking disgusting, and it makes me wish there was a God just so these twats could be punished.

[Les Willis]

When it comes to profiting from selling drugs there should be laws against it (or they should be subsidised by the US Government.) Blatant profiteering when selling something that a person needs to stay alive is pretty abominable. It's the sort of thing that will kill Capitalism.

[Red Beret]

Of course there was a reason.  Making money.  It's not a MORAL reason to be sure, but it's still a reason.

[Red Beret]

@JohnCFierce It's a great business decision that also benefits all of our stakeholders. I don't expect the likes of you to process that.

I hope somebody tweets back along the lines of: I process it just fine.  You are an evil bastard who is prepared to let people die because making money is more important to you.

[exiledintheUSA]

I'm a 100% sure that his mum didn't hug him as a child.  What a complete fucking tosser.

[Terry_Tibbs]

This c*nts got a bit of history:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/22/martin_shkreli_price_gouging_the_hedge_fund_bro_pulled_drug_price_hike_scheme.html

And:
http://gawker.com/lawsuit-scumbag-pharma-price-gouger-stalked-and-harass-1732357240?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Wouldn't get too worked off he will soon be unemployable

[Alan_X]

Wouldn't get too worked off he will soon be unemployable

? He owns the company.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

? He owns the company.

hes pretty much fucked it

[QC]

Hasn't he offered it to those that can't afford it for free?

[conman]

Honestly I hope he doesn't , he can afford the drug. I hope he gets some incurable disease that ravages his body from top to bottom that causes him months and months of pain that he has no hope of treating, leaving him a hollow shell of the person he is today. Then I hope he has a heart attack while trying to make it from the bed to the bathroom suffering the indignity of only making halfway there and shitting himself in the process.

are you some sort of apologist or something?

[Chakan]

are you some sort of apologist or something?

A karma-ist of some sort

[Mouth]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/G7P4iFg048k" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/G7P4iFg048k</a>

[Carly]

Its a 62 year old drug. Surely theres a cheaper generic version of it available?

[Elmo!]

Its a 62 year old drug. Surely theres a cheaper generic version of it available?

ben goldacre ‏@bengoldacre  23h23 hours ago
Another reason generic copies may be hard here: high market entry cost to start manufacturing, and then tiny market

[west_london_red]

Hasn't he offered it to those that can't afford it for free?

How do they decide who can and cant afford it?

[hide5seek]

Hasn't he offered it to those that can't afford it for free?

To be fair even you can afford the mark up that's some kind of sick profiteering.

[QC]

To be fair even you can afford the mark up that's some kind of sick profiteering.

Yeah, but I can also see the argument if all the profits are genuinely being used to fund the next generation of the drug.

[robgomm]

The guy is a hedge fund manager buying up old patents and jacking up the price to make him and his fund's stakeholders rich or richer than they already are. It's nothing to do with putting profits back into the patients hands. The guy has spotted a gap in the market to make money and isn't bothered if it affects anyone's lives except his own.

[west_london_red]

The guy is a hedge fund manager buying up old patents and jacking up the price to make him and his fund's stakeholders rich or richer than they already are. It's nothing to do with putting profits back into the patients hands. The guy has spotted a gap in the market to make money and isn't bothered if it affects anyone's lives except his own.

Exactly, lets not make the guy to be anything then what he is. Hes a spiv, hes seen a chance to make some money and he's taken it without giving a fuck to the health of the people who need the drug in question. Thats not to say that drugs companies dont need to make money and they dont need to invest in R&D to find new medicines, but if anyone thinks thats what is going on here they are deliberatly closing their eyes. A drug that is 62 years old has had its research and investment more then paid for several times over and this is just profiteering.

[QC]

Exactly, lets not make the guy to be anything then what he is. Hes a spiv, hes seen a chance to make some money and he's taken it without giving a fuck to the health of the people who need the drug in question. Thats not to say that drugs companies dont need to make money and they dont need to invest in R&D to find new medicines, but if anyone thinks thats what is going on here they are deliberatly closing their eyes. A drug that is 62 years old has had its research and investment more then paid for several times over and this is just profiteering.

It's not about paying for prior research, it's about funding next generation research. Back when I wrote a paper on this subject, the price of the average 'blockbuster' drug discovery was $1 billion US dollars. The subject matter being health and access to medicine often leaves a bitter taste when people see the prices being raised, but there is logic behind it given the cost of R&D. It is of course possible that this CEO is using his marketing licence to make  profits purely for shareholder distribution, but it would be very short-term and short-sighted given the profits he could make from funding the next blockbuster drug in this area.

Plus, the company appears to be making the drug free to those who can't afford it.

[SP]

but it would be very short-term and short-sighted

He is an ex-hedge fund manager whose previous biotech company ousted him amid allegations he was using the company to pay off his debts from a previous hedge fund. A fund that got sued by Lehman Brothers for $2.3m - although they conveniently ceased to exist before that could be enforced.

He is all about short term decisions and fucking every body else.

The Beeb reports £1.15bn to bring a drug to market, with only 10% of that being the actual costs of R&D and the clinical trials.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27130098 

Most of the cost is the cost of capital - pay back is in the decades time frame. This does of course beg the question of if they are gouging profits in the short term, why are they paying exorbitant amounts to borrow money for R&D? That 10% figure is shocking.

[SP]

Plus, the company appears to be making the drug free to those who can't afford it.

Which is a PR stunt, that will be nigh on impossible to claim away from the cameras.

They know that virtually all of the bills will go to Insurance Companies that will have to pay full whack.

[stevensr123]

Drug companies spend about twice the amount on marketing than they do actually researching drugs.

And the major drug companies have profit percentages comparable to banks.

Basically the majority are c***nts who need reigning in. Problem is a lot of people think the free market solves everything and regulation will interfere in innovation.

[QC]

He is an ex-hedge fund manager whose previous biotech company ousted him amid allegations he was using the company to pay off his debts from a previous hedge fund. A fund that got sued by Lehman Brothers for $2.3m - although they conveniently ceased to exist before that could be enforced.

He is all about short term decisions and fucking every body else.

The Beeb reports £1.15bn to bring a drug to market, with only 10% of that being the actual costs of R&D and the clinical trials.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27130098 

Most of the cost is the cost of capital - pay back is in the decades time frame. This does of course beg the question of if they are gouging profits in the short term, why are they paying exorbitant amounts to borrow money for R&D? That 10% figure is shocking.

This CEO's particular history aside, i'm still not convinced profiteering is at the heart of the matter. As you say, COC is a large factor, as is R&D. The COC is so high because blockbuster drugs are an uncertain commodity. It's almost a speculative business. You can go years down the development of a drug only for it to fail fundamentally or at a regulatory stage.

For me (speculation on my part) the price increase, which is US exclusive, comes down to moral hazard. Specifically Medicare is at fault. It makes sense, as the free medicine will likely go to those uninsured by the program, meaning the Medicare insurance system takes the financial hit. Granted, the consumer will feel the hit through increased premiums. Essentially, now that there is an insurance middle-man, moral hazard theory indicates that people don't really care as much about the price because a third party (the insurance companies) is taking the bulk of the cost increase. The pharmaceutical companies see an opportunity to tap into larger revenue streams and are likely competing for the next blockbuster with that revenue.

The poor generic market in the US is also behind this pricing; although this is somewhat of a calculated cost as the US are (rightly in my opinion) protective of their innovator centric pharmaceutical sector.

[jason67]

Maybe a title change is needed?

Lifesaving HIV drug increased in price by 5000% because he's a greedy c*nt

[wellred82]

I heard on a JRE podcast that scientists discovered a snail or frog somewhere in the amazon who's poison was 10x more powerful than paracetamol, but without the addictivness. Allegedly people form some pharmaceutical went in and literally killed as many of them as they could find. No idea if it was true but wouldn't surprise me.

[west_london_red]

This CEO's particular history aside, i'm still not convinced profiteering is at the heart of the matter. As you say, COC is a large factor, as is R&D. The COC is so high because blockbuster drugs are an uncertain commodity. It's almost a speculative business. You can go years down the development of a drug only for it to fail fundamentally or at a regulatory stage.

For me (speculation on my part) the price increase, which is US exclusive, comes down to moral hazard. Specifically Medicare is at fault. It makes sense, as the free medicine will likely go to those uninsured by the program, meaning the Medicare insurance system takes the financial hit. Granted, the consumer will feel the hit through increased premiums. Essentially, now that there is an insurance middle-man, moral hazard theory indicates that people don't really care as much about the price because a third party (the insurance companies) is taking the bulk of the cost increase. The pharmaceutical companies see an opportunity to tap into larger revenue streams and are likely competing for the next blockbuster with that revenue.

The poor generic market in the US is also behind this pricing; although this is somewhat of a calculated cost as the US are (rightly in my opinion) protective of their innovator centric pharmaceutical sector.

First of all, to say your being kind to the CEO is an understatement - but we all have different views of how the world should be and people motives are.

The bit about people not caring as the insurance companies pick up the tab at the end of the day is probably what would concern me the most because some people will care. Now, I have no idea how such schemes are run in the US admitidly, but if such a thing were to happen here where there is a finite budget for drugs within the NHS, paying 5000% more for a treatment might well mean that other treatments for other illnesses are not made avilable on the NHS and people who are denied those treatments will certainly care.

[Fat Scouser]

Picked up my medicines today... 2 little packets and a bottle of pills. They are the first months supply, and I'm going to be on them for at least 3 months. They cost the NHS 65k. They are made by one of the corporations that infected at least 10 thousand people in the UK alone, through bad blood transfusions. And the same corporations will end up owning the NHS, well, the profitable parts of it. And the plasma division of the NHS has already been sold off to the Pharmacuticals.

Here's a list of MPs that will profit from sale of NHS...
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/11/18/named-and-shamed-the-government-mps-profiting-from-nhs-sell-off/

[QC]

First of all, to say your being kind to the CEO is an understatement - but we all have different views of how the world should be and people motives are.

The bit about people not caring as the insurance companies pick up the tab at the end of the day is probably what would concern me the most because some people will care. Now, I have no idea how such schemes are run in the US admitidly, but if such a thing were to happen here where there is a finite budget for drugs within the NHS, paying 5000% more for a treatment might well mean that other treatments for other illnesses are not made avilable on the NHS and people who are denied those treatments will certainly care.

Some will, but not enough. That is why if you're going to have universal healthcare, you can't really have a middle man. There are too many points of negotiation between the insurers and drug companies that can leave the US government (who fund the insurers) out of pocket. You have to go full NHS or not at all in my opinion. The drug companies are only making these hikes cause they'll still have buyers (the insurance middle man), whereas if the US government were directly negotiating prices they'd likely tell the company to get stuffed and they'd have to lower the price or risk having no buyers at all.

All i'm saying is that it is more nuanced issue than a witch hunt against your standard corporate overlord.

[west_london_red]

Some will, but not enough. That is why if you're going to have universal healthcare, you can't really have a middle man. There are too many points of negotiation between the insurers and drug companies that can leave the US government (who fund the insurers) out of pocket. You have to go full NHS or not at all in my opinion. The drug companies are only making these hikes cause they'll still have buyers (the insurance middle man), whereas if the US government were directly negotiating prices they'd likely tell the company to get stuffed and they'd have to lower the price or risk having no buyers at all.

All i'm saying is that it is more nuanced issue than a witch hunt against your standard corporate overlord.

I don't see what difference that makes, whether they are dealing with one centralised body or multiple insurers what's stopping them increasing the price 5000% to a centralised body? Yes they have greater purchasing power etc and can negotiate better, but either way the drug company has the patent and exclusive rights in the US so they can still jack up the price with the centralised body having to accept the price or do without.

[QC]

I don't see what difference that makes, whether they are dealing with one centralised body or multiple insurers what's stopping them increasing the price 5000% to a centralised body? Yes they have greater purchasing power etc and can negotiate better, but either way the drug company has the patent and exclusive rights in the US so they can still jack up the price with the centralised body having to accept the price or do without.

The patent is long dead, its only an exclusive licensing agreement. If you have a single purchasing body they can always just look elsewhere, especially if its the US government as they would literally be the only serious buyer other than the occasional super rich HIV patient. The law of price and demand would simply make 750 a pop untenable.

Scrapping the insurance system gets rid of possible deals between the insurer and the drug company only to cover that specific drug; service fees; and also denying people the medication on technicalities. I'm sure there's more, but my area of interest in the pharma sector is about patents so i'm reaching into unchartered waters.

[McrRed]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/G7P4iFg048k" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/G7P4iFg048k</a>

Just patch it on up...

Picked up my medicines today... 2 little packets and a bottle of pills. They are the first months supply, and I'm going to be on them for at least 3 months. They cost the NHS 65k. They are made by one of the corporations that infected at least 10 thousand people in the UK alone, through bad blood transfusions. And the same corporations will end up owning the NHS, well, the profitable parts of it. And the plasma division of the NHS has already been sold off to the Pharmacuticals.

Here's a list of MPs that will profit from sale of NHS...
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/11/18/named-and-shamed-the-government-mps-profiting-from-nhs-sell-off/

Fuck me FS you could buy a house for that. Some bastard's making money out of a serious scandal. Anyway, good luck on the meds and may you ever be symptom (& contraindication) free.

[Fat Scouser]

Thanks Mc. I'll be fine, mate. The big problem is, the Pharmacutical Corporations have already bought the house of parliament.