BigPharma Crooks at it Again: EpiPen Alternative has $4500 List Price, 7 Times EpiPen...

CVS/Impax is marketing and alternative for a 110 bucks.

Why do you hate America? The owner of the product is free to charge as they see fit and prevent competition.

Free market theory, son!

My locum tenems dude just informed me it's a 2 pack for 109.99 at CVS.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Why do you hate America? The owner of the product is free to charge as they see fit and prevent competition.

Free market theory, son!

Amen!

And that company spent millions or billions getting the drug through government-mandatated clinical trials.. how are they supposed to keep their company alive, let alone profitable? Selling it Jim Bob OP here for $9.99?

No handouts!

The more we sic the government on the biotech industry, the worse things will get.

Want cheap drugs? Abolish the FDA.

The left's solution of having the government dictate drug prices will leave us with no drugs at any price.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Why do you hate America? The owner of the product is free to charge as they see fit and prevent competition.

Free market theory, son!

Go smoke some more crack Son.

Just another guy wrote:

My locum tenems dude just informed me it's a 2 pack for 109.99 at CVS.

In English plz?

locum tenems = short term contract MD

I don't think this sensationalist piece of news could possibly be true. If it would really cost me 7 times as much to buy this product, I just wouldn't do it and I'd buy the EpiPen instead.

From a profit maximization standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to set your price at 7X the price of a perfect substitute. You wouldn't sell anything and you'd make no money.

Should've vote Bernie in, merica.

supersmart brilliant wrote:

The more we sic the government on the biotech industry, the worse things will get.

Want cheap drugs? Abolish the FDA.

The left's solution of having the government dictate drug prices will leave us with no drugs at any price.

There is so much that is incorrect about this post that I don't know where to start.

The FDA assesses efficacy and safety. (preventing snake oil)

W prevented Medicare from negotiating prices.. So the right's solution was to have drug companies set prices. How is that working?

supersmart brilliant wrote:

The more we sic the government on the biotech industry, the worse things will get.

Want cheap drugs? Abolish the FDA.

The left's solution of having the government dictate drug prices will leave us with no drugs at any price.

Yes. Let's bring thalydimide back. Pregnant mom's never had it so good. Asbestos works great too. Too much government intervention.

As long as I can collect profit and shift the risk to government, it's all good

Kaleo is hardly Big Pharma

supersmart brilliant wrote:

The more we sic the government on the biotech industry, the worse things will get.

Want cheap drugs? Abolish the FDA.

The left's solution of having the government dictate drug prices will leave us with no drugs at any price.

Ahhh, the right's dillema...wanting small government, but not realizing some government is keeping them from killing themselves by say, ingesting poison. Or from buying products with no benefit.

And this is the END of the drug pipeline...when Trump cuts government-funded basic research, the pipeline in the US will be cut off at the source. Jobs will be lost, biotech industry growth will stagnate, and the US will become reliant on other countries around the world that are currently flying by us science-wise (ahem, China) for pharmaceuticals.

MAGA!

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Yes. Let's bring thalydimide back. Pregnant mom's never had it so good. Asbestos works great too. Too much government intervention.

As long as I can collect profit and shift the risk to government, it's all good

The thalidomide episode exemplifies regulatory failure. The European regulators failed to recognize the drug's dangers, and the complacent medical community, having unthinking faith in the regulators' decisions, acted on their false assurance of safety.

70 years later, people who know nothing about either history or economics still cannot come up with a better example than the thalidomide regulatory failure to demonstrate the success of regulation.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Why do you hate America? The owner of the product is free to charge as they see fit and prevent competition.

Free market theory, son!

Assuming you aren't trolling and based on things you've said in the past, you are one of if not THE biggest idiot on the boards.

This ain't about prices, you shouldn't be playing "free market" with things essential to people's lives. It's just morals. People like you need to stop reading CNN and get a clue. You probably supported the Clintons. The complacency of people like you is why we're still using fossil fuels and bombing 7 different countries. Don't try to blame it on trump because he said something that offended your little rights, you've been ignoring human rights violations by the elite for DECADES. In particular liberals like Obama and Clinton. Bush Jr. was no saint either. H.W. has a good heart

Spot on! It's almost like essential care should made available and affordable to all, perhaps by some sort of gov-mandated act... 🤔

Oh wait...

You speaking from a glass house fam 😂

supersmart brilliant wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Yes. Let's bring thalydimide back. Pregnant mom's never had it so good. Asbestos works great too. Too much government intervention.

As long as I can collect profit and shift the risk to government, it's all good

The thalidomide episode exemplifies regulatory failure. The European regulators failed to recognize the drug's dangers, and the complacent medical community, having unthinking faith in the regulators' decisions, acted on their false assurance of safety.

70 years later, people who know nothing about either history or economics still cannot come up with a better example than the thalidomide regulatory failure to demonstrate the success of regulation.

There are certainly other examples, but your post also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the drug approval and surveillance process.

Many drugs get approved after study in a relatively small number of patients, a few thousand maybe.

Only when used more broadly (AND systematically studied) Will less common, but potentially important, side effects be seen.

This is phase 4 in the process. Other examples of drugs that have gone by the wayside in this route:

Ticlopidine, a blood thinner.

One of Pfizer's antibiotics.

It seems your options would be:

A. Do away with FDA and have drug companies have their way.

B. Require this additional study before drugs come to market, increasing time and cost.

C. Stick with FDA drug approval process.

supersmart brilliant wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Yes. Let's bring thalydimide back. Pregnant mom's never had it so good. Asbestos works great too. Too much government intervention.

As long as I can collect profit and shift the risk to government, it's all good

The thalidomide episode exemplifies regulatory failure. The European regulators failed to recognize the drug's dangers, and the complacent medical community, having unthinking faith in the regulators' decisions, acted on their false assurance of safety.

70 years later, people who know nothing about either history or economics still cannot come up with a better example than the thalidomide regulatory failure to demonstrate the success of regulation.

Doctors aren't scientists, they are technicians. I have several friends in med school and the entire curriculum is memorization and regurgitation of facts and practicing of skills. Frankly, they aren't trained to be critical thinkers. What exactly are you saying? That doctors shouldn't trust regulators and it should be the job of practicing doctors to perform research on experimental drugs in the clinic? The the lack of regulatory failures as high profile as thalidomide indicates that regulation since then has been fairly successful at the job it was intended to.

I think those here advocating for a laissez faire system of medicine are highly naive. Yes there are MAJOR inefficiencies in regulatory procedures and room for improvement in both cost and quality of approval processes, but those that want to "abolish the FDA" are recklessly throwing out the baby with the bath water. Drug companies can't be trusted to test the safety and efficacy of their drugs as they are biased by the need for profit, doctors are too busy practicing medicine to perform research, who else out there has the interest in overseeing that which is necessary for public well-being but has no financial incentive?

What do the free-market-everywhere people envision as an alternative system? Everyone's just a guinea pig? Consumers must read yelp reviews to find out which drugs might kill you? Everyone must take individual responsibility and perform their own research in their garage before determining what is safe and effective?