RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

McGee writes: "Until this week most of us had never heard of Daraprim, a drug that fights toxoplasmosis. But after the decision of the drug's new owner, Turing Pharmaceuticals, to boost its cost per pill from $13.50 to a whopping $750, we're all unlikely to forget its name or the name of Turing's owner, 32-year-old Martin Shkreli."

Martin Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which raised the price of the drug Daraprim to $750 a tablet from $13.50. (photo: Paul Taggart/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Martin Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which raised the price of the drug Daraprim to $750 a tablet from $13.50. (photo: Paul Taggart/Bloomberg/Getty Images)


Daraprim 'Profiteering' Controversy Lifts Lid on Soaring Cost of Prescription Drugs

By Suzanne McGee, Guardian UK

27 September 15

 

Beyond Martin Shkreli’s behavior, the price of medications pits the interests of patients against the profits of two big industries – pharmaceuticals and insurance

ntil this week most of us had never heard of Daraprim, a drug that fights toxoplasmosis. But after the decision of the drug’s new owner, Turing Pharmaceuticals, to boost its cost per pill from $13.50 to a whopping $750, we’re all unlikely to forget its name or the name of Turing’s owner, 32-year-old Martin Shkreli.

Shkreli became one of the most hated men in America last week, Hillary Clinton called for reforms in the drug market, social media tore him to shreds, a punk label he bankrolled severed ties with him and even Donald Trump weighed in, calling him a “spoiled brat”.

He’s now pledged to cut the price – he hasn’t said by how much or when – but the outrage over the astronomical hike in a life-saving drug has opened the doors to a fast-moving and furious debate about the soaring costs of prescription medications in the United States – one that is long overdue.

While from a scientific and business perspective, we may be in the midst of a new “golden age” for pharmaceutical innovation and research and development in the drug industry, the costs of these new wonder drugs may drive the system – and the individuals within it – to the brink.

Daraprim is a particularly egregious example of how broken the system is because it isn’t a new and complex wonder drug, but something that has been around since the 1940s. Logic suggests that drugs that have been around for a while should decline in price, in part because they are cheap and easy to make; in part because they face competition from generic manufacturers. It turns out that isn’t the case.

Part of the problem is that there are individuals like Shkreli scouring the market for drugs like Daraprim that don’t have effective generic rivals (perhaps that market is too small for a generic drug maker to view it is profitable; perhaps, as in Daraprim’s case, there are unique issues surrounding the requirements for regulatory testing) or other factors that give the drug a lot of effective pricing power. The profit-minded individual or company snaps up the patents, suddenly hikes the drug’s price and puts consumers – from insurance companies to individuals – in a position of either paying what is demanded or going without.

Late this summer, Rodelis Therapeutics boosted the cost of 30 tablets of cycloserine, a tuberculosis drug, from $500 to $10,800. When the Mayo Clinic made the price hike public, the company returned the rights to the medication to the Chao Center for Industrial Pharmacy & Contract Manufacturing, from which it had acquired them. Early in the year, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc boosted the prices of two heart drugs, Nitropress and Isuprel, by 525% and 212% on the same day that they acquired them. “Our duty is to shareholders and to maximize the value” of Valeant’s products, a company spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal at the time.

I’ve encountered this first hand. When I started freelancing in 2002, I began paying for my own medication to treat my chronic migraines: Fioricet with codeine. Back then, the cost to me of the brand (the only kind that Walgreen’s stocked – they claimed that no generic version existed) was $220 per month. By 2005, it was $350. By 2007, $450. In 2009, it was well north of $500. That was the year that I moved pharmacies and finally discovered a generic. But then the cost of the generic, too, began to climb – from $120 to $160 and then to north of $200 a month. Just because a drug is a generic doesn’t make it immune from big price increases, as industry mergers and decisions by manufacturers to stop producing some drugs have affected availability of some medications.

At least with insurance (although that insurance premium isn’t cheap), the medications I have to take are at least affordable, because my insurer will cover them. In the cases of some of the newest and most costly bleeding-edge drugs, the jury is out on whether that will happen.

A case in point is the newest treatments for hepatitis C, sold by Gilead Science and AbbVie, which appear to cure more than 90% of those infected with the potentially fatal liver disease. More than three million Americans are estimated to have hep C, which can be spread, among other things by poorly sterilized medical instruments, as well as (in prior decades) blood transfusions, as well as sharing needles among drug addicts, and can result in cirrhosis, cancer and ultimately death. The new drugs, including Harvoni, can effect a complete cure in as little as three months, with few side-effects, and even prevent the scarring. The price tag, however, is astronomical: as much as $94,500.

Unsurprisingly, insurers are balking at footing the bill – even though it’s significantly cheaper than paying out $175,000 or so to cover a liver transplant a few years down the road. (Perhaps they’re reading the actuarial tables, and gambling that livers won’t become available in time for a transplant and that this actually is a better bet?) They insist that the newer drugs haven’t been tested in as many people as the typical drugs and so they are only approving treatments for those with advanced liver disease.

That’s prompting patients trying to avoid ending up with irreversible damage to their organs to sue their insurers. Insurers, for their part, point out that while these drugs represent a tiny fraction of prescriptions written for their members – perhaps 1% – they can make up as much of a quarter of all spending on drugs, as is the case at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.

Obamacare may have made basic healthcare – flu shots, a visit to the doctor’s office, and such basic expenses – accessible and affordable, to some extent and with varying degrees of success. (Yes, your favorite doctor may not participate in the plan that you can afford; yes, while some of us pay less, others may find themselves paying more every month in premiums.) But the cost of prescription medication is one area that remains largely unaddressed, and has the potential to be even more perilously complicated to try to resolve: it involves not one, but two sets of for-profit interests, the pharmaceutical companies who research and develop the increasingly sophisticated products to treat diseases that once had few effective medications, and the insurance companies that must find a way to collect enough premiums from you and me to pay for it all and still make money for their shareholders.

It’s no wonder that the Daraprim debacle has drawn the attention of political candidates on both sides of the aisle. Even Donald Trump, that promoter of free enterprise, appeared to draw the line at Shkreli’s attempt to profiteer, being quoted as calling him “a spoiled brat” and describing his actions as “disgusting”. For their part, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders took to the campaign trail to talk about the need to curb drug price increases. As a populist strategy, it’s got to be a winning one. But any attempt to craft new policies around the ideas they are discussing may unleash a battle with insurers and with the pharmaceutical industry that makes the struggle over Obamacare look like a pleasant afternoon stroll on the beach.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+12 # Capn Canard 2015-09-27 09:46
This whole issue does lay bare why the capitalist privatized banking paradigm is beyond unsustainable. Eliminate the privatized Federal Reserve. Use the United States Department of Treasury to coin debt free money instead of the debt based Federal Reserve currency.
 
 
+27 # reiverpacific 2015-09-27 10:03
If this isn't a case for Universal Healthcare, its increased efficiency with less administrative costs, keeping the obscene profits of big pharma' within manageable bounds and eliminating private insurance, other than for those rich enough to be able to absorb such monstrous profiteering, I don't know what is.
You just have the Lobbyists, their political puppets in both houses and parties, plus a bent SCOTUS to get out of the way first.
The very fact that this bit of blatant gouging isn't a criminal offense in the first place is proof-positive that the US of Armaments is still a long way off joining the rest of the "Civilized" world!
 
 
+3 # Karlus58 2015-09-27 13:42
Oh no! That's Socialism!
 
 
+15 # elkingo 2015-09-27 11:18
They ought to hang that callow, completely alienated latter-day yuppie scum-kid. Or is public spanking allowed?

As the radio announcer said at the Hindenburg disaster (look it up) "O, the humanity, the humanity!"
 
 
+10 # guomashi 2015-09-27 11:18
Capitalism at its best.
Why would anyone complain about it?
That's what we all signed up for in the good old U$A, isn't it?
 
 
+8 # James Klimaski 2015-09-27 12:06
So, did he really lower the price of Daraprim? If so, what is the new price? In England it sells for 66 cents.
 
 
+19 # Passing Through 2015-09-27 12:33
Quoting James Klimaski:
So, did he really lower the price of Daraprim? If so, what is the new price? In England it sells for 66 cents.

Hello, Americans are the only people who pay full retail for drugs that were developed with their tax dollars. (In this case, a drug that is older than me, 62 vs. 54.) Allowing that, he didn't lower it to it's previous price-- $13.50 - it doesn't matter. His defense is that all the money generated from price increases will result in R&D for a new, better drug; also one with a new patent attached, and the price of that new drug will probably eclipse this one.

Shelkri is an amoral, money-obsessed piece of scum.
 
 
+9 # Shades of gray matter 2015-09-27 15:47
In THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DRUG COMPANIES, Marcia Angell, head of Social Medicine at Harvard, not a hotbed of corporate libelers, points out that Big Pharmas, contrary to their propaganda, develop very few drugs and stifle the development of others. Rather, they acquire the licenses to market drugs commonly created via public funding, at universities, foundations, etc. They do participate in some final pre marketing drug trial research, but most drugs are created elsewhere. AT LEAST the systems for licensing, patenting, pricing must be radically reformed. Big Pharmas use their political clout to prevent Medicare from freely negotiating prices (Bush & Obama agreed to this....see Canadian prices)and to stifle sales worldwide of quality drugs outside of their control. Clinton and Gore threatened cutoff of US Foreign Aid to African countries that purchased dramatically cheaper drugs not marketed by Big Pharmas protected by US govt. As is the usual case, Foreign Aid is really taxpayer funded aid to GlobalCorps who own our govt. Upward redistribution, socialism for the rich, Geyser Up (reverse trickle down) doo doo economics.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2015-09-27 19:07
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
In THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DRUG COMPANIES, Marcia Angell, head of Social Medicine at Harvard, not a hotbed of corporate libelers, points out that Big Pharmas, contrary to their propaganda, develop very few drugs and stifle the development of others. Rather, they acquire the licenses to market drugs commonly created via public funding, at universities, foundations, etc. They do participate in some final pre marketing drug trial research, but most drugs are created elsewhere. AT LEAST the systems for licensing, patenting, pricing must be radically reformed. Big Pharmas use their political clout to prevent Medicare from freely negotiating prices (Bush & Obama agreed to this....see Canadian prices)and to stifle sales worldwide of quality drugs outside of their control. Clinton and Gore threatened cutoff of US Foreign Aid to African countries that purchased dramatically cheaper drugs not marketed by Big Pharmas protected by US govt. As is the usual case, Foreign Aid is really taxpayer funded aid to GlobalCorps who own our govt. Upward redistribution, socialism for the rich, Geyser Up (reverse trickle down) doo doo economics.

Thanks for that insight.
It makes perfect sense and I hope I can quote you on that, as I'm a member and activist for HCAO (Health Care for All Oregon), who was born and raised under the benign umbrella of the British NHS. -We need all the backup and information we can collect.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN