The 60 Minutes Story This Evening (6/21) on Drug Prices

[SEAMSGUY]

It was a repeat but still shocking. The prices drug companies charge for specialty drugs are outrageous and immoral.

[Mamabug]

I guess that I thought the high prices were due to research. After their cost is recovered, however, prices should be lowered, IMO.

[its2much]

Generic Copaxone

Article in NY Times last week said the wholesale cost of generic copaxone will be over $63,000 per year. Do a search on Teva Ruling Clears Way for Generic Version of Multiple Sclerosis Drug. It was published June 18, 2015.
It is immoral what the drugs companies do.

[JerryD]

And that is the way the drug company's want us to view the business of research and development and marketing a drug. Perception is a powerful thing.

[MSW1963]

The 60 Minutes piece was specific to Cancer drugs, but nevertheless jaw dropping info. Hope the link passes TOS, if not, it was the top google search result for a 60 Minutes search.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-...l-health-care/

[jreagan70]

I don't know how this applies to cancer drugs, but with regard to MS drugs, the price complaints completely overlook how many people the drug companies have given copay assistance to or supplied free drugs to.

[MSW1963]

I've been the beneficiary of MS pharmaceutical company payment assistance which I feel a lot of gratitude to have received. Particularly one specific infusion medication, I actually experienced remission of sx after 10yrs, not the case for any other MS DMD I've taken over 15yrs since dx.

That said, we really know very little about how the financial assistance programs really work, if the assistance is offset by passing increased cost to fully insured group health plans via increased premiums, co-pays, increased max out of pocket limits. Parenting with Non Profit assistance programs with beneficial tax incentives, etc.

Financial reporting for these assistance programs does not required full, transparent disclosure, meaning there may be more smoke and mirrors involved in what on the surface appears to be purely altruistic. I have my doubts about that, but I'm also very grateful to have received the benefit of successful MS treatments otherwise out of my financial reach.

Here is a link that I hope adds to this discussion:

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...ZINE/303079980

if the link violates TOS, the website is modernhealthcare dot com. article/20150307 MAGAZINE

[jreagan70]

The alternative is that drug companies stop innovating because the profit has gone out of it. Then we would be back to having NO new drugs for MS.

In 2012, Forbes magazine ran an article called "The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs." The author points out that "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion."

And "It really does cost billions of dollars to invent new medicines for heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. The reality is that the pharmaceutical business is in the grip of rising failure rates and rising costs."

And this: "many medicines are over-priced, but high-cost drugs are only a small part of our general health cost problem. Medicines are just among the easiest products to scapegoat because their prices are easier to track."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...g-new-drugs/2/

As for looking a gift horse in the mouth, ALL charity comes from profits made somewhere else.

[J-Bo]

I wouldn't be too quick to worry about drug companies' profits: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223. Do we believe for a second that if they only had the profit margin of say, the petroleum industry, they'd go out of business?

And I've heard many times that they spend about twice as much on marketing as they do on research: http://http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/. To be sure, you have to do some marketing to get a market share, but for them to claim that it's research that mostly drives their costs is pretty disingenuous.

[jreagan70]

The importance of pharmaceutical profits isn't highlighted by the stories of companies that survive by the high costs of their drugs, but in the stories of companies that incurred significant failures because of lack of funding and/or profitability.

Cladribine had been fast-tracked by the FDA, but when the FDA rejected it, Serono abandoned it because the additional clinical studies and the risk management program required for approval would be too expensive to make the drug profitable.

Another startup company that was developing a vaccine for MS went bankrupt without producing a single product of any kind. Venture capitalists won't invest without a reasonable projection of profit.

And, even after raising $55 million, the Myelin Repair Foundation had to close after barely getting their research off the ground.

What would be the point of investing $5 billion in research and development if all the drug company could do was make their costs back and break even?

How many of you would keep going to a job everyday that only paid you enough to cover the cost of gasoline to get you to and from it?

[pennstater]

I think everyone agrees the company has a right to profit, but at what point does it cross the line? With investors in for profit companies, the answer is never. That is why funding is lost if companies can't project enough return on investment.

While I am grateful to live in a free market society, pharmaceuticals are like other industries - greed driven by wall street. All evidenced by the shrinking of the American middle class.

End of my deep thoughts for the day.