No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by TinyMcOtter on Sep 13, 2018 4:32:41 AM
Quadrupling drug price rises as a ‘moral requirement’, says pharma boss

Mr Mulye compared his decision to increase the price to an art dealer that sells “a painting for half a billion* dollars” and said he was in “this business to make money”.

Nitrofurantoin is an antibiotic used to treat bladder infections that was first marketed in 1953, which appears on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

https://www.ft.com/content/48b0ce2c-b544-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
TinyMcOtter - 13 Sep 2018 04:33:45 (#1 of 56)

Still, it’s legal, so that’s OK then.

thisonehasalittlehat - 13 Sep 2018 06:57:56 (#2 of 56)

It'll be out of patent after that time.

col2001 - 13 Sep 2018 07:10:09 (#3 of 56)

I thought that, hat.

Reading the piece, it appears he makes a generic version, that the original branded version is even more expensive and that he can only do so as there's a shortage of suppliers: a regulatory changes because of impurities and nobody else making it in this form at present.

So it's not as if he's charging a high price as pay-back for R&D as we often hear.

dottie30 - 13 Sep 2018 07:18:33 (#4 of 56)

I used to take this drug when I was a child. I was born with reflux and had constant infections. Frankly, the sooner they find something to replace it the better - all I can remember is it made me terribly, terribly sick.

They had to take me off it in the end and put me on co-trimoxazole even though it wasn't the ideal drug for my condition.

machiavelli - 13 Sep 2018 07:23:03 (#5 of 56)

“I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can . . . to sell the product for the highest price.”

Dear Mr Mulye

It is a moral requirement that the government maximises tax revenue in order to properly fund public services. Therefore we are quadrupling what you must pay in tax.

Yours, the Gubmint Taxbastards.

TinyMcOtter - 13 Sep 2018 07:25:12 (#6 of 56)

Hear hear!

TinyMcOtter - 13 Sep 2018 07:27:08 (#7 of 56)

Personally, I’d nationalise the company, without compensation, sequestrate the shareholders assets and provide the drug at cost price. But I’m a liberal centrist at heart.

dottie30 - 13 Sep 2018 07:31:38 (#8 of 56)

Thing is, UTIs don't respond that well to antibios like penicillin. They generally need the sulfa drugs that hit the kidneys and bladder hard and which are less problematic in terms of resistance. I think this drug is on the WTOs list of essential medications so you can see why an arsehole would think they could profit from it.

This drug is not a sulfa drug but it does act like it and is mainly used to prevent as opposed to treat infections.

machiavelli - 13 Sep 2018 07:34:14 (#9 of 56)

I know a country where companies over a certain size were automatically nationalised. Incompetent government cronies turned them into creaking vehicles that leaked money.

I think that corporate power vs that of the citizen is out of balance but wholesale nationalisation creates another kind of problem.

A government is in a position to create incentives not to behave in certain ways and to directly prohibit harmful courses of action. Judicious intervention is better than either extreme.

emorobot - 13 Sep 2018 07:39:52 (#10 of 56)

Quadrupling drug price rises as a ‘moral requirement’, says pharma boss

Perhaps now some of our centrist friends can begin to see why people get so angry about capitalism and capitalists?

mememe - 13 Sep 2018 07:50:11 (#11 of 56)

So it's not as if he's charging a high price as pay-back for R&D as we often hear.

Well he sort of is: just not on this drug. But there's nothing much wrong with increasing your price to respond to an inward movement of the supply curve: it's what anyone rational would do.

The issue is that in a fragmented, multi-payer market like US healthcare, the only response available is for some of those payers to stop paying that price: which means that some patients will stop getting treatment (less than ideal). In a monopsony like the NHS the single payer has all the power.

SheikYerbouti - 13 Sep 2018 07:51:30 (#12 of 56)

He said Nostrum had lost money for several years and hit out at an increase in the fees that drugmakers must pay to the regulator, which he said were tantamount to “highway robbery”.

In the same article, this is rather wonderful.

Tenesmus - 13 Sep 2018 07:52:36 (#13 of 56)

monopsony

I've learned something today.

SheikYerbouti - 13 Sep 2018 07:53:42 (#14 of 56)

But there's nothing much wrong with increasing your price to respond to an inward movement of the supply curve: it's what anyone rational would do.

That is the issue with the price of cars, Iphones and art. Medicine is not a morally neutral industry though, unless you're a sociopath.

clammy - 13 Sep 2018 07:56:57 (#15 of 56)

#14, That last paragraph is just so right.

Well said.

TRaney - 13 Sep 2018 08:03:48 (#16 of 56)

In the event of a shortage of supply how should we

- decide who gets what is available?

- signal to competitors that they should start making the stuff?

GyratingTrampoline - 13 Sep 2018 08:12:07 (#17 of 56)

1) supply the nhs first, supply whatever's left over to bupa etc.

2) send them an email?

SheikYerbouti - 13 Sep 2018 08:12:13 (#18 of 56)

With fists.

TRaney - 13 Sep 2018 08:17:49 (#19 of 56)

#17 Who is in charge in your scenario?

mememe - 13 Sep 2018 08:19:34 (#20 of 56)

Medicine is not a morally neutral industry though, unless you're a sociopath.

Of course not. No business is morally neutral. Not sure what your point is though.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » UK News