Slashdot Mirror


Patent Expires On Best Selling Drug of All Time

Hugh Pickens writes "The U.S. patent has just expired on Lipitor, the best-selling drug of all time, as the first generic versions go on sale, marking the end of a brand that has dominated the drug industry, lowered the cholesterol of tens of millions of patients, and generated $10.7 billion last year in annual sales. But drug manufacturer Pfizer, dependent on Lipitor for almost one-fifth of the company's revenue, does not intend to go down without a fight. Pfizer is employing unprecedented tactics to hold onto as many Lipitor prescriptions as it can with an aggressive marketing plan and forging deals with insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and patients to meet or beat the price of its generic replacements because even at the lower price, Pfizer has a huge profit margin because of the relatively low cost of materials for Lipitor. Some deals require pharmacies to reject prescriptions for low-cost generics and substitute a discounted name-brand Lipitor while other deals block generic makers from mail-order services that account for an estimated 40 percent of all Lipitor prescriptions. 'Pfizer's tactic of dressing up as a generics company is pulling the rug under the incentive system created to foster the development of generic drugs,' says attorney David A. Balto."

123 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My ass. you grant a monopoly to someone. That someone gets big on that monopoly. You think that they would just let it go when patent expires ? think again. has music industry let it go with copyrights ? no, they are trying to extend it to 120 years now. pfizer is just another example. bad example though - they could just lobby beforehand and try to extend patent durations, like music industry does with copyrights.

    1. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, they do. Being able to get sole rightrs on the drug is why tneya re invented. It can cost mollions of dollars.

      And this article is much ado about nothing. Patent is expiring, company ups advertising and lowers price.

      BFD

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Phizer has, no doubt, efficient large scale production processes in place for atorvastatin. If they can produce and sell it for less than companies which focus on generics, more power to them. How is this bad for the consumer?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More often than not, they are "invented" based on research done at universities; including publicly funded ones. We should be cutting the middle-man and funding those projects more, rather than creating artificial property to encourage corporations to "invent" drugs.

    4. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a patent problem it's an anti-trust problem. Please adjust your 'fixit' suggestions accordingly.

    5. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      This bears only the most tenuous connection to the truth. Yes, the cholesterol synthesis pathway came out of a lot of university research. HMG-CoA reductase is a critical enzyme. There are a lot of compounds that will inhibit enzymes in vitro; the vast majority are utterly unsuited to use as anything but research compounds because they aren't safe, can't be made into an orally bioavailable form, have bad kinetics, or any of a thousand other things that can sink a potential drug.

      Drugs come from... drug companies, not from universities, because drug companies have the billions of dollars to put a compound through clinical trials and the expertise to make the drugs usable.

    6. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they want to outbid generics on price, nothing's wrong with that. But those agreements mentioned in TFS, where pharmacies must only prescribe their offering - that sounds rather anti-competitive to me.

    7. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by aurispector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Patents by design grant a TEMPORARY monopoly to cover the cost of R&D and to provide incentive for companies to actually do the R& D in the first place.

      The problem with the drug industry is that in order to comply with the regulatory quagmire that is the FDA, they have to disclose essential details about their work publicly long before it can go to market. Hence patents must be acquired long before the drug can make any money. These days drugs cost literally billions of dollars to develop. Burning patent life during the R&D time robs the companies of profits they would have earned, driving up costs for the consumer as they must raise prices in order to recoup R&D expenses in the shortened time the product is on the market under patent. Remember, these drugs save lives and directly improve the quality of life for potentially billions of people. These same people will eventually get reduced cost access to the drug when it goes generic off patent.

      Contrast this with the entertainment industry: Anyone can pen an idiotic ditty for virtually nothing, in basically no time at all. The product merely provides people with fleeting, momentary amusement. No lives are saved, no diseases cured. Even the biggest, most expensive blockbuster movie costs a fraction of what it cost to bring lipitor to market..

      Now unless you're an idiotic, dirty, lazy hippie who thinks everything should be free, you will have to admit that unless people are going to get paid, there is no way they are going to spend all that time and effort on drug development even if the end result means lives are saved. After all they have mouths to feed, mortgages to pay, etc, and the pharmaceutical industry is one of the few areas left in the US consistently providing high paying jobs to smart, motivated and educated people.

      Turns out the profit motive is a terrific way to get people to do useful things. Who'da thunk that people were willing to work so hard in order to get ahead. Amazing, isn't it?

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    8. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ALL TEMPORARY MONOPOLIES try to turn themselves into PERMANENT MONOPOLIES.

    9. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by alienzed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't care what it costs, people will do the research anyway because they know someone or themselves are afflicted with the condition. I just don't buy that we'll stop innovating if patents and copyrights disappear. There will still be profit to be made and there will still be incentive to make that profit. The only difference is that competition will drive down prices and drive up quality. How can you have capitalism AND government granted monopolies at the same time? It doesn't make sense.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    10. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need patents to commercialize medicine. With the exception of clinical trials, everything could be done in a free market just as well (and did; aspirin was invented in Germany but couldn't be patented there; in fact in the early part of the 20th century, before Germany and France allowed drug and chemical patents, they were the center of innovation in those fields.)

      Clinical trials are like a public good, and all things told society would maximize its wealth by ditching patents and funding clinical trials with taxes. A very good read on the myths of copyright and patents is "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

    11. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by OCedHrt · · Score: 2

      Would fixed ROI based regulated pricing increase accessibility and reduce consumer costs?

    12. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are just on your knees (a very comfortable position for a fanboi though). ... And to the serial downmodding assholes...

      *Smirk*

      You remind me of a friend I had that wrote me a three page email about how carpal tunnel was killing him.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Key word being try. We don't have to let them. And we certainly shouldn't overreact by abolishing IP entirely.

    14. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by tsotha · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. Drug targets come out of universities. But drug targets are a dime a dozen. The real expense is in clinical trials, and that is paid by drug companies in almost all cases. When the cost is shared the university gets part of the patent.

    15. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Now unless you're an idiotic, dirty, lazy hippie who thinks everything should be free, you will have to admit that unless people are going to get paid, there is no way they are going to spend all that time and effort on drug development even if the end result means lives are saved.

      I was going to mod you down as troll/flamebait since you seem to be an ignorant greedy capitalist but that wouldn't encourage people to actually discuss and raise above this ignorance. Namely,

      a) you are generalizing and making claims without any justification or evidence that:

      i) hippies are idiotic, (Oh No! Some people think that there is MORE to life then just money. How idiotic of them for wanting to share!)

      ii) _only_ hippies think everything should be free, (You _do_ realize that animals have lived on this planet millions of years without "paying" anyone. The universe provides everything you need to exist -- it is only greedy capitalists unable to imagine a world without money.)

      b) that altruism is idiotic, (You _have_ heard of Philanthropy, right? I guess no one does anything for the betterment of mankind for free.)

      c) that is is OK to put a price on saving a human life. (i.e. "Sorry, you can't afford this drug -- you deserve to die.")

      > Turns out the profit motive is a terrific way to get people to do useful things. Who'da thunk that people were willing to work so hard in order to get ahead. Amazing, isn't it?

      Now I don't disagree with you that, yes, money provides a great incentive, but thankfully dinosaurs that think money is the _only_ way to motivate people are dying. The problem with big pharma is that basically it only caters to those who can afford to live, or put another away, it sends the message that "you only have the right to life IF you can afford it." I'm sorry but EVERYONE has the right to life, regardless of the cost. It is only an idiotic system that places different values on people's lives -- namely those that can afford to not die. Sorry, but one day you will grow up and realize that the only humane way is to _remove_ PROFITING from people dieing.

    16. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative
      Most states have laws which require pharmacies to dispense less expensive generics, if requested. Some even require it:

      Whenever a pharmacist receives a prescription for a brand name drug, the pharmacist shall substitute a less expensive generically equivalent drug unless requested otherwise by the purchaser or indicated otherwise by the prescriber.

      - Pennsylvania, for instance.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Intropy · · Score: 2

      No, the losers in this scenario are all the people who had to fork over their hard earned cash to support the fat cat drug companies just so they could profit off their research. Y'know, instead of not having a drug invented at all. That's pretty despicable.

    18. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should be cutting the middle-man and funding those projects more

      I think you need both systems. Academia is just as attractive to hucksters as the free market when flush with money. How many BS grant proposals get written just to finance the existence of a department? The university system is one of the crowning achievements of humanity, but let's not get carried away and think it can replace capitalism.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just don't buy that we'll stop innovating if patents and copyrights disappear.

      You don't need to, because that's a strawman. Proponents of patents/copyrights hold that those things get us more innovation than we would without them, not that there would be none at all without them.

    20. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Intropy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should I invent something when I can just wait for you to invent it then rip it off?

    21. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your posts are those of a 2.5 million uid. Anyone who has been on /. as long as you have should know better. You are being modded down because bring up Apple is off-topic enough to be considered flamebait. While the subject is patents it is a completely different debate. At hand what a company does when its patent expires. To be on topic you could debate the length of that patent (hey $10.7 Billion in revenues in one year, maybe the patent should be fewer years). With Apple the argument is not the same. The argument is about obvious and non-obvious patents (hey its a rounded rectangle, that shouldn't be a patent).

      And you insult someone who challenges you rather than argue your case. I've debated Mr. I like to lick Butts before. I don't agree with all of his posts but he can make a good case for his views.

    22. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by forand · · Score: 2

      You may want to read this ProPublica article on the subject. They are not simply lowering prices. They are exerting their market share to prohibit others from competing with them.

    23. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by exomondo · · Score: 2

      The only difference is that competition will drive down prices and drive up quality.

      It'll go to whoever can make it the cheapest and still turn a profit, which will be whoever has the biggest manufacturing operations, because the person who actually invents it has nothing of value, to create any kind of profit from it they would need a manufacturing operation, one capable of competing with existing established large manufacturing operations. How are they going to do that?

    24. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      thats EVIL.

      The amazing thing is, despite icky shit like this, capitalism STILL has out-competed every other economic system devised by man. Maybe technology will let us move to a more sane system for matching supply to demand. We already monkey around with capitalism, because while it is pretty good at meeting demand, it seems to be terrible at factoring in external costs or contingencies. So we do things like screw with the market so we have a planned glut of food, and screw with the market by having emissions trading, and screw with the market by inventing IP laws, etc.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Drugs come from... drug companies, not from universities, because drug companies have the billions of dollars to put a compound through clinical trials and the expertise to make the drugs usable.

      And don't forget, they've got twice as much money for advertising those drugs as they have for researching those drugs and running those clinical trials.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    26. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by blakelarson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A drug trial can literally run more than $10M easily. Are you telling me that a government should fund every companies clinical trial at $10M a pop? Don't clinical research orgs. stand to make a *lot* of money off of that? Or should the government decide who gets this clinical trial money? Not sure if you know this, but the government isn't always the best judge of which companies / ideas to support.

    27. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Pfizer still has a big profit margin after the patent has expired, why wouldn't they have invented anyway?

      Because the costs of manufacturing a drug once it has been created and approved are much less than the costs of developing one. They will still have a good profit margin TODAY because the costs of designing and testing the hundreds of potential candidates they went through to get to a final, working drug were paid off during the patent period.

      They wouldn't have a profit margin if they had to sell the drug from day one at the same price as those people who are going to manufacture the generics now.

      Developing drugs is a risk. You can get all the way to trials and then find out that your fancy new LDL drug gives 50% of the people who take it the hives or only works in 3% of the users. All the money you spent getting there is gone. People who fund that kind of risk deserve to get paid back for taking the risk, mostly because they won't take the risk unless they do.

    28. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by similar_name · · Score: 2

      Yes, they do. Being able to get sole rightrs on the drug is why tneya re invented. It can cost mollions of dollars.*

      They did get $10.7 billion in revenues last year. For the most part I'm ok with them making a lot more than the drug costs to develop. After all not every drug is successful. I'm pretty okay with the time for patents. I might argue a little shorter but its a low item for my ideal(ological) patent system. I think the only problem I have is the influence marketing has on people. Not that advertising your products is bad but that many people use it as their sole source of research.

      I believe there is a real need for a lot of pharmaceuticals. At the same time I question the number of people who take prescriptions when a healthier lifestyle would be just as beneficial if not more. I am as guilty as anyone in needing to eat better and exercise better. However, I feel that many people (my gut tells me at least half) choose medication over the harder changes in activity/eating habits.

      Part of me wants the government to spend more on 'educating' the populace. That part is overridden by it being an unjustifiable expense to put on the government (it's really not government's purpose) . The liberal in me wants to create a utopian government. The conservative in me wants to open a fitness center. I've decided to settle somewhere in the middle with a /. post. :)

      *emphasis mine, original spelling quoted.

    29. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Fluffeh · · Score: 2

      I just don't buy that we'll stop innovating if patents and copyrights disappear. There will still be profit to be made and there will still be incentive to make that profit.

      The problem here (and I am against many patents/copyrights for the most part) is that due to the "We must be 100% certain that no-one will be hurt in any way, shape, form or other..." approach taken by most countries in what they allow to be used for treating what - and the absurd litigation that occurs throughout the US when unforseen side-effects surface, or medications don't work quite as advertised. These things have driven up the cost to go from an idea or even some solid research to the point where it is marketable. This process costs millions and millions of dollars and takes many years to complete.

      So, to get back on point, the problem with abolishing patents like this totally means that this investment of millions and millions hasn't quite got that same level of guarantees with it. The folks investing (read gambling on this) will be more hesitant to back that idea with their money, but rather choose to invest where there are more dependable returns.

      If I have a million to invest, I don't care what the investment is - I care about steady and certain returns.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    30. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Intropy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They may very well have. Obviously we can't know what happens in that alternate reality. But there are a number of reasons why they might not:

      1) They could wait for someone else to do the work, produce the drug, and make even bigger profits by saving the development costs.
      2) They don't know ahead of time that the drug will be so successful, and not having the exclusive period increases the risk.
      3) "Profit" at this point is a marginal concept. Producing more Lipitor and selling it cheap is profitable. That doesn't imply that selling it cheap this whole time would have been profitable when considering the development costs.
      4) The article notes that Pfizer may be able to out-compete generic producers based on cost. I have no data to back this up, but it's possible that expertise or industrial scale gained during the exclusive period plays a role in their comparative efficiency.

    31. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      If you remove profit, then nobody will look for new and better drugs. That, and today's profits off of drugs like this are funding research into next generation drugs and treatments, testing and trials and lawsuits and .... What you're really asking for is for no more research. That's pretty despicable.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    32. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, kudos for keeping the discussion civil.

      I disagree with some of your points, though. Specifically:

      You _do_ realize that animals have lived on this planet millions of years without "paying" anyone. The universe provides everything you need to exist

      Animals (including humans) spend a lot of time "subsisting". That is, chronically hungry or malnourished. Animals left to their own devices generally consume everything that they can, build up a large population, and then starve back to a more sustainable population. Healthy populations of animals tend to be healthy because some predator is culling the sick and old and generally keeping the numbers down. I don't think you want to look to the animal kingdom as any kind of a model for humans.

      I'm sorry but EVERYONE has the right to life, regardless of the cost.

      Everyone has the right not to have their life taken away, but no one has a right to unlimited, state-of-the-art healthcare. Money is just a way to quantify resources, and we don't have the resources to give everyone all the healthcare that they want, when they want it. You have to ration it. Different countries take different approaches. In the US, we have 3 different systems of healthcare and so we see wait lists, prioritization (like for organ transplants), restricted availability, and of course dollars. In some countries, they use restricted availability, age limits for certain procedures, and wait lists. And these are the rich countries. The point is, you have to mete out the health care somehow, and while it seems cold to say, "sorry, you can't afford it," I think it also sounds cold to say, "sorry, you are too old to have a kidney transplant." I'm not sure what the right balance is, but I'm willing to discuss it - but I think it is completely incorrect to say that everyone has a right to healthcare - I think that's more of a laudable goal, or an ideal to strive for, but not a right. You do have a right to die, though :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monopoly drugs are what's expensive. If you remove one of the justifications for absurd monopoly prices on drugs, you will likely save much more money in the long run than you spend on drug trials.

      Besides drug trials represent an obvious conflict of interest if being carried out by a company that stands to profit greatly from the ensuing monopoly. Taking them completely out of the hands of the drug companies might not be a bad idea just for that.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    34. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    35. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll give you an example. A coal power plant sets up shop on the east coast of the US. It has no pollution controls at all, because this is pure capitalism in this example and the government doesn't require any. Prevailing winds are westerly, so all the pollution blows out to sea and no one gets sick and no one sues. Problem is, all that mercury is getting into the fish. It's impossible for anyone to prove this to a jury and sue that particular plant, so it just continues. Even if they could prove that, statistically, the plant was responsible for some of the mercury - they still would have a heck of a time proving harm. Capitalism will never solve this problem.

      Another is food. Capitalism always has cycles of shortages and gluts. A shortage of hard drives because of a flood in Thailand is one thing, a shortage of food is quite another. Capitalism will never solve this problem, because constantly producing a glut of food would drive farmers out of business which of course leads to a shortage. One solution is for the government to come in and buy the glut and then destroy it - unless of course there is no glut! Then you get to use the food and thank the usually wasteful food program. Not the only solution, but it's a common one. The point is, capitalism won't work on it's own when it comes to staple foods.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Drugs come from... drug companies, not from universities, because drug companies have the billions of dollars to put a compound through clinical trials and the expertise to make the drugs usable.

      And don't forget, they've got twice as much money for advertising those drugs as they have for researching those drugs and running those clinical trials.

      Actually, I sold my Pfizer stock long ago, because in an era where medicine's costs are skyrocketing, share value remained pretty much flat. Or dropped.

      After a while I noticed that the REAL drug development seemed to come out of small companies. Big Pharma (Pfizer and friends) were more interested in buying them out than in actual productive work of their own.

      Liptor is the Drug From Hell as far as drug companies are concerned. Every attempt to replace it with something with a newer patent has exploded in their faces, as all the Lipitor "improvements" have been pretty darned dangerous, whereas Lipitor is fairly safe for most people.

    37. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      thank you.

      lets always remember that if they can afford so much on advertising and marketing, SOMETHING IS WRONG and should be changed.

      this is healthcare. its not some luxury item.

      lets not forget this. its what makes us HUMAN, dammit.

      healthcare is different. it is. if you don't understand that, you are a barbarian.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    38. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      A very similar situation obtains in the oil and gas drilling industry - small companies do the development work, identify the field, drill a few test wells, and ultimately sell the field to a large company like ExxonMobil, Texaco, etc. The small companies do their job and take their profit, then move on to the next one - they're more nimble, and the big boys would rather pump oil and refine it for fuels and chemicals than go out and find it.

    39. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The clinical trials have to adhere to extremely strict regulations by the FDA.

      Also, there is insane liability with drugs too. If you (by your suggestion) think that drug companies are at all interested in cutting some corners during testing and trials, you're clearly not considering the amount of money said company stands to lose if something bad were to happen. If you want to see a sample: http://drugclassactionlawsuit.com/

      So, yea, there's huge risk in bringing something to market. I don't know what a good solution is yet, or if maybe moving the research/testing to the public sector is a good idea... But don't discount that the drug companies (the few that are still around) have plenty riding on making sure those trials.

    40. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by pz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a nice Hollywood-inspired vision you have there.

      Reality is that research costs money. A lot of money. Being passionate and driven, in the Hollywood sense, is largely irrelevant because that does not get you research dollars. Money for health-related research comes from the NIH, and only the NIH, to first approximation. Yes, there are other sources, but the NIH dwarfs them all. Sure, an extraordinarily motivated researcher might be able to convince George Soros to give him a few million dollars to pursue a multi-year plan on a new drug target, but that's the Hollywood fantasy again. The vast majority of biology researchers get their money from the standard NIH grant mechanism called an R01 (pronounced ARR-OH-ONE). That would be your tax dollars at work.

      As another poster pointed out, that's only the first step. A drug target has been identified by university research. Now, the hard part begins where multiple animal models are tested in large scale, followed by Phase I clinical trials with a small cohort to demonstrate that the drug causes no harm, then Phase II trials with a slightly larger cohort to determine effective doses, then, perhaps, another animal study or two because the results didn't work as well as anticipated in humans, followed by Phase I again on a reformulated drug, then more research to figure out why there were horrible side-effects, back to Phase I, then Phase II, and, if the developer is lucky, Phase III. We're talking years after the initial discovery now, with lots of hospital costs, lots of salaries, and *then* the legal stuff starts with the FDA to get approval for general release. Next, lobbying starts on the insurance companies, especially Medicare and Medicaid, to cover treatment with the drug.

      Put it this way, there is an entire industry focused specifically on clinical trials, and most drug candidates don't make it through. Because we've set the bar so high to get a drug approved, and the success rate is so low, there must be substantial reward for many people to justify the expense. One researcher having a dream is not enough, despite what Hollywood would have you believe.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    41. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the early 1900s, nobody had NMR, IR, or mass spectrometry to determine structures and reproduce them. And we really had very few drugs - if you study the development of clinically useful drugs, modern mechanisms of action mostly didn't appear until the amphetamines of the 1920s, and penicillin and the antihistamines in the 1930s.

    42. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by wazza · · Score: 2

      OK, I've had enough of this garbage. Time for a reality check.

      c) that is is OK to put a price on saving a human life. (i.e. "Sorry, you can't afford this drug -- you deserve to die.")

      In the real world, where everything that is done requires work, and possibly depletion of resources, there always IS a price that can be put, on anything.

      We might not like that fact, and it might not be all touchy-feely friendly, but that's how it is. Effort is required to get useful things done, effort requires work, and usually resources, and thus it costs you (or someone else). Money isn't very equitably distributed, but the various forms of it are what the entire world uses to trade for time, energy, and resources.

      But I'm really peeved by the completely BS second part of your point:

      "Sorry, you can't afford this drug..."

      Fair enough, a statement of the reality that some people sometimes face. You might never face it yourself (be lucky enough to live in a rich country), but most people do from time to time. It's a horrible situation to be in, and I've been there myself more than once.

      " -- you deserve to die."

      However, this sentence is simply your opinion of how you think other people are thinking, and is impossible to logically derive from the previous sentence. What a pathetic, sensationalist red herring. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you have any proof at all that your second sentence describes the thought processes of the majority of people in the world? Because let me tell you, "you deserve to die" is a very hard indictment of someone - and the vast majority of people that I've ever known do not think in that way.

      Also, the following is also wrong:

      I'm sorry but EVERYONE has the right to life, regardless of the cost.

      No, they don't. I want your statement to be right, for the world to be like that. But it is not. You don't have the right to life, you merely have the right to fight for your own life. There is no universe-granted right to live. Civilization of humanity has brought us the understanding, and in some cases ability, to try and create and defend a "right to live" through a thousand different constructs such as government, welfare, centralised planning, universal healthcare (for some), and so on. But the natural world in general does NOT provide that, and civilization's attempts to overcome that fact will never succeed completely. We just don't have the mastery of our environment to do so. If the modern world allows you the chance to avoid certain medical problems, treat others, and generally extend your life compared to no care and assistance at all, then good. But that's a privilege of living in a rich, modern society, and not some sort of "I inherently deserve this" right.

    43. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      $10M is a drop in the bucket for a clinical trial.

    44. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by vipvop · · Score: 2

      And yet you lack the basic understanding that using "FAIL" means you're a fucking idiot who belongs on icanhazcheezburger - shouldn't you be posting image macros somewhere?

    45. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. A good rule of thumb: if your "right" requires others to do something for you, it's not a right - it's a service.

    46. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or maybe the big companies are interested in avoiding the bad publicity involved with developing a new field, so they fund the small companies that take the heat, and then take over after the dirty work is done.

    47. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Reziac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They may also outcompete on patient satisfaction.

      Generics don't necessarily equate (nor do branded versions), and both for that reason and physician inertia, the prescription market tends to be slow to shift. Here's an example:

      http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3106

      As to why they don't equate -- even when the active ingredient is identical, the various binders and excipients can greatly differ, and that can mean that some patients only do well on a specific brand. This can be particularly critical with drugs that are prescribed in very low doses (micrograms) or that tend to degrade very rapidly.

      I was just reading a study on that the other day (can't find it again offhand but it was in NEJM) -- for one commonly-prescribed drug, results were radically different depending on the binder -- from 18% to 90%. This can result in nominally-identical drugs not being bioequivalent (and the FDA has a rating system for bioequivalence).

      [BTW as it turned out, the cheap old-fashioned sugar-based binders performed best.]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    48. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      Or should the government decide who gets this clinical trial money? Not sure if you know this, but the government isn't always the best judge of which companies / ideas to support.

      The free market has its own failings. When drug development is strongly driven by the profit potential, drug development inevitably goes where the money is, but that's not always where we need drug development to go. For instance, there are a lot of well-off white guys who have trouble getting boners, so the drug companies have spent untold millions giving us Viagra and similar drugs. Meanwhile, there are a lot of poor, dark-skinned people in the Third World who are suffering from malaria. But since they don't have a lot of money to spend on drugs, drug companies haven't done such a good job of developing antimalarials. In fact, many of the widely used anti-malaria treatments are the result of government research. Mefloquine (Lariam) was developed by the U.S. Army, Chloroquine was invented by Bayer but only used for malaria following U.S. government testing, and artemisinin- the newest addition to the antimalarials- was developed from a folk remedy by the People's Liberation Army of China. In short, if there's money to be made treating a disease, the free markets (with incentive provided by patents) are a very effective way of developing and testing treatments. But if the sufferers are poor, the free market isn't much help. Nobody is going to dispute that there are things that the free market does best, however there are definitely some places where governments need to step in and do things that are unprofitable, but necessary.

    49. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by HuguesT · · Score: 2

      Actually the American way is not the only way. You can also socialize the costs so that most people get the treatment they *need*, not based on their revenue. I suggest you take a look at Canada, Australia, NZ most of Europe, and so on. There getting cancer or any long-term illness does not necessarily mean bankruptcy or selling your house.

      And guess what, it is not that expensive. Certainly less than a few wars here and there.

    50. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I would class myself as neither an "idiotic, dirty lazy hippy" nor an "ignorant , greedy capitalist", though I have most certainly been classified as both of those by other people (make of that what you will).

      What I am is an engineer...

      that is is OK to put a price on saving a human life. (i.e. "Sorry, you can't afford this drug -- you deserve to die.")

      I've never seen a better way of doing safety. As an engineer, we were taught that the going rate for a human life was in practice about 1 million pounds (at the time), and bear in mind that engineering disasters have a habit of killing quite a lot more than one person.

      It might seem callous, but otherwise how do you determin how much to spend on safety? If you put the price per life up to infinity or even large but finite, then you can never do anything because someone might die and you simply can't afford to spend any more money. Obviously, if you put it too low, then you couls have easily saved a number of lives with a small outlay.

      And now on to drugs, its the same argument. It crops up a lot in the UK, especially when an expensive new drug comes on the market which could be given to a lot of people. You always get cries of "life shouldn't have a price", "everyone should get this drug". Well, yes. Life shouldn't have a price and everyone should be able to get the drug, but the problem as always is reality.

      If you give lots of people an expensive drug from the NHS budget, then there will simply be less money for other treatments for other people, meaning more, not fewer people will die. Actually, the NHS could avoid putting a price on life by doind a massive global optimization to minimize the expected early death rate under a constrained budget. It probably should be done, but I expect it would be very hard. Putting a price on life is a good surrogate cost. In fact, it feels like having the correct a fixed price on life could put an upper bound on the optimal death rate (conjecture).

      But the conclusion of that diatribe is that if you don't put a price on life, then how do you decide how much to spend on averting risks?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    51. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Waccoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the pharmaceutical industry is one of the few areas left in the US consistently providing high paying jobs to smart, motivated and educated people.

      I generally agree with your stance, but lines like this bother me. My sister used to work for a number of pharmaceutical companies. "High paying" doesn't really describe the positions very well, and the instant a breakthrough was made, management sold the company and the workers got their pink slips (hence, working for "a number of" companies). I find it amazing that anything gets done at all, when everyone knows an R&D breakthrough means everyone loses their job.

      It's as dirty a business as any other.

    52. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Or maybe the big companies are interested in avoiding the bad publicity involved with developing a new field, so they fund the small companies that take the heat, and then take over after the dirty work is done.

      The John Galt Drug Company?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    53. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Fish+(David+Trout) · · Score: 2

      And don't forget, they've got twice as much money for advertising those drugs as they have for researching those drugs and running those clinical trials.

      With good reason I would suspect.

      Developing a new drug is a very risky and very expensive thing. R&D costs money and lots of it, while generating exactly zero dollars in income.

      The sales of said drugs (i.e. the fruit of R&D's labor) however, is what generates income, and is what ultimately covers the incredible cost involved in developing it in the first place (as well as the cost of failed research efforts on drugs which "never panned out" and thus never made it to market).

      If the percentages spent on promotion verses R&D were reversed (e.g. only 13.4% on marketing verses 24.4% for research and development), they might not be able to generate enough income to cover the cost of all the dollars they were sinking into developing their new wonder drug, and then where would we be? After all, "He who has a thing to sell and goes to whisper in a well, is not as apt to get the dollars as he who climbs a tree and hollers!"

      Now I'm no fan of seeing so many advertisements for drugs in so many magazines, etc (since such advertisements are mostly lots of hype sprinkled with heavy doses of fine printed medical gobbledy-gook which I can neither read what with my poor eyesight nor understand what with my non-existent medical training), but bashing drug companies for spending more on advertising than your average non-drug company is hardly a convincing argument that they are therefore all greedy sons of bitches. (There are much easier ways to make money than developing new life-saving drugs after all, so greed (i.e. wont for profit) can't be the sole motivating factor).

      Bottom line: given a choice between fewer life-saving drugs but a couple extra dollars in my pocket verses a realible supply of some life-saving drug that I might some day need in order to survive (at the marginal cost of more dollars going into their pockets instead of mine), I vote for the latter thank-you-very-much.

      NOW THEN, getting back on topic...

      If they have indeed had more than plenty enough time to recoup the costs incurred in developing said drug and are now simply wishing to prolong their ride on the profit train their investment generated because they inadequately failed to plan ahead for said train eventually reaching the end of the line which they knew was coming, then fuck 'em. They should have planned ahead better.

      --
      "Fish" (David B. Trout)
    54. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really. Everybody acts like sales and marketing are unimportant details. They are not. Products do not sell themselves, and no amount of disliking sales and marketing people is going to change that. Companies that ditch their highly-paid sales staff (some of whom will outearn the CEO/founder, especially in small companies) quickly find this out.

    55. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      What bad publicity? The big boys do the offshore work, the Alaska work - we're talking about land-based here, which are mostly in areas that have had oil and gas exploration for a long time and look at it as a source of revenue and jobs.

    56. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Drug development as a whole is a conflict of interest when done by for-profit companies...

      A cure is far less profitable than an ongoing course of drugs that simply alleviates the symptoms.

      Research should be performed by non profits, government, universities, charities etc... For-profit companies should only be dumb manufacturers, competing on price.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    57. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by aurispector · · Score: 2

      This is quite possibly the most stupid thing I've ever read on /. and that is saying a lot. How will an American drug manufacturer ever make a dime if they shoulder the cost of R&D, only to have the market stolen by low cost operators from china and India who pay workers pennies on the dollar compared to US workers?

      Here's an example illustrating why you are not only so incredibly wrong but quite possibly in a delusional/hallucinatory state.

      Imagine little Jonny has a hangnail and it's fatal. Fatal Hangnail Disease (FHD) happens to be extremely complex, so complex that it will take the entire worlds' population 1000 years of working 24/7 to figure it out. How soon would altruism find that cure? Please recall that these people need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, etc., for the duration.

      The answer is pretty much never, particularly if you plan to treat Jonny for free once the cure is discovered.

      Same result if you don't have IP to cover the cost of research. Why would anyone do all that work if someone else is simply going to start producing the drug, having paid nothing toward the cost of development. The drug companies have no incentive to do anything.

      People here are whining that drug companies make profits over and above the cost of development. The key to understanding it is that unless there is money to be made, the smartest, brightest, best educated people in the world won't engage in a complex endeavor to do anything. Why? Because people have to look after their own interests first. No other economic system has ever produced such results so predictably. That's the way it is, that's the way it always will be.

      Altruism can't hold a candle to self interest when it comes to motivation value.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    58. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. Everybody acts like sales and marketing are unimportant details. They are not. Products do not sell themselves, and no amount of disliking sales and marketing people is going to change that. Companies that ditch their highly-paid sales staff (some of whom will outearn the CEO/founder, especially in small companies) quickly find this out.

      This response is completely upside-down: taking a serious problem that "free market fundamentalists" have created in the U.S., and treating it as if it is not only normal, but also inevitable and really a GOOD thing!

      The fact that the U.S. dropped restrictions on drug companies on marketing prescription drugs directly to the public, thus becoming the only country in the world that allows it, is part of the reason that the cost of medicine in the U.S. has exploded.

      The enormous ad expenditures are for direct marketing to the public. Except for the very safe drugs for commonplace ailments that are sold OTC public is not qualified to make judgments about the drugs they should take. Honest. They aren't. Doctors are paid to have that expertise. We don't need direct marketing to the public. No other nation needs it. Big Pharma didn't use to need it. But doctors they aren't immune to the pressure from their patients - nor are they completely immune to the absolutely fact-free, emotion-laden content of ads which they also see constantly (there used to be much stronger restrictions also on how Big Pharma could seek to debase the judgment of doctors directly - through perks that are just dressed-up kick-backs for prescribing costly drugs). None of this is necessary to practice good medicine - it undermines it in fact.

      A classic recent example of how the marketing game is the drug Prilosec -- pushed incessantly by its patent holder until the day the patent expired. The next day no comment of this worthy drug could be found, now it was a new patented replacement virtually identical in effects called Nexium. Trying to push the now inexpensive generic Prilosec out of the public's (and doctor's) mind and replacing it with the needlessly costly Nexium did no benefit to the public or medicine. It was an ad campaign solely designed to keep medical costs high.

      Yeah. We need lots more of that.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    59. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except for the very safe drugs for commonplace ailments that are sold OTC public is not qualified to make judgments about the drugs they should take. Honest. They aren't. Doctors are paid to have that expertise.

      This is utter nonsense. Anyone with a decent understanding of scientific method and the ability to read research papers is fully qualified to make judgements about the drugs they should take. It boggles my mind that people will go in to their mechanic and question whether a proposed treatment is the right one but will give over care of the only body they ever get to someone else.

      I do have conversations with doctors over treatments. I ask why they recommend a particular treatment, what alternatives exist, etc, and I research them. Interestingly, sometimes doctors don't know why one treatment is better, it's just what they like to do. Rarely, some have given me answers that amount to folk medicine. "My mom always..." The ones who really impress me say things like "Yes, drug X is getting a lot of press, but clinical trials show it's not more effective than the one I recommend, which also has fewer side effects/costs less/whatever". Those are the doctors I want.

      You are actually a great case in point. I trust if/when you go to a doctor who prescribes Nexium for you, you will demand generic Prilosec because you know it's a better choice for you.

    60. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by NSash · · Score: 2

      The free market has its own failings. When drug development is strongly driven by the profit potential, drug development inevitably goes where the money is, but that's not always where we need drug development to go. For instance, there are a lot of well-off white guys who have trouble getting boners, so the drug companies have spent untold millions giving us Viagra and similar drugs. Meanwhile, there are a lot of poor, dark-skinned people in the Third World who are suffering from malaria.

      You could have left out the words "white guys" and "dark-skinned" from your post without changing anything, unless your intention was to slip in a side implication that markets are more prone to racial discrimination than government bodies. If that is your implication, I disagree with this. Businessmen have to balance their private prejudices against their greed, but the same doesn't apply to unaccountable bureaucrats.

    61. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that with your second sentence you've just reduced your "public" to about 5% of the population?

    62. Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      This is utter nonsense. Anyone with a decent understanding of scientific method and the ability to read research papers is fully qualified to make judgements about the drugs they should take. It boggles my mind that people will go in to their mechanic and question whether a proposed treatment is the right one but will give over care of the only body they ever get to someone else.

      Oh, for mod points...

      You don't even need to be able to read research papers. All you need to do is talk to the doctor and pharmacist and listen to what they tell you.

      I was put on one blood pressure med a few months ago. I was told "these are potential side effects...". It was MY responsibility to watch out for those, and my responsibility to say "stop" if any of them showed up.

      I'm also responsible for letting my doctor know all of the meds and supplements I'm taking. "The words are too big, I don't understand" isn't an excuse.

      I used to think the part in the ads where they say "tell your doctor if you have kidney disease or liver problems before taking this drug..." was a laugh. Isn't the doctor supposed to tell YOU if you have kidney disease? I'm now seeing three doctors and what one knows doesn't always get to the other two. And the one I saw a year ago who isn't around anymore told me things that weren't passed on to his colleagues at all.

      I do have conversations with doctors over treatments. I ask why they recommend a particular treatment, what alternatives exist, etc, and I research them.

      Absolutely. And I question them about the implications for flight medicals and FAA regulations, which almost none of them have ever known anything about. Guess who gets to do the research on that?

  2. Choosing the correct tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least Pfizer isn't trying to unreasonably extend the patent, sue its customers, or use other underhanded tricks to cheat the system at the expense of everyone else.

    Unlike some other...companies.

    1. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm unclear here. Since when did pharmacists suddenly get the right to override a doctor's prescription? How can Pfizer actually get a pharmacist to sign an exclusivity agreement.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quoting the Summary:

      Pfizer is employing unprecedented tactics to hold onto as many Lipitor prescriptions as it can with an aggressive marketing plan and forging deals with insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and patients to meet or beat the price of its generic replacements

      As long as the Meet or Beat tactic is used I fail to see the problem. If a pharmacy can get a better price on the original Lipitor, make a profit and still beat the generic price fine by me.

      Even if the pharmacy has to sign an exclusivity agreement and not carry the generic but still gets to beat the price, fine.

      Not every pharmacy carries every drug, and doctors often allow substitutions,. generic or otherwise. In fact they are encouraged to NOT prescribe brand name drugs. Some states limit this specifically for patients under state programs.

      Most drugs that have widely accepted generic equivalences are no longer routinely prescribed with the stipulation of Dispense As Written (DAW), because it raises a red flags with insurance companies and is often a financial burden on patients.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by dlevitan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm unclear here. Since when did pharmacists suddenly get the right to override a doctor's prescription? How can Pfizer actually get a pharmacist to sign an exclusivity agreement.

      Pharmacists don't override a doctor's prescription. Lipitor is the brand name of the drug Atorvastatin, which was developed by Pfizer. A prescription is for Atorvastatin (or Lipitor, whatever the doctor) writes down, but the drug is the same whether or not is was made by Pfizer (and called Lipitor) or by a different company (and called atorvastatin). Pfizer has simply made exclusivity agreements that pharmacies would not sell generic versions of atorvastatin. This might be bad for the consumer (price-wise, not health-wise), but they can always go to a different pharmacy if theirs refuses to sell the generic.

    4. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pharmacy techs here in Canada have full right to offer a generic or brand even against the doctors orders, as long as it's chemically identical to the drug prescribed.
      That's one of the benefits of a nation wide healthcare program that subsides drugs to some extent, they're always on the lookout to save a few more dollars.

      AFAIK: (I'm not an American, so this is simply "as told to me by a pharmacy tech friend of mine in the states") The Pharmacy (not the tech) can choose to replace a brand with a generic, if it will save them money. If the buyer so chooses to purchase the brand name out of pocket (Health plans come with their own restrictions) he's free to do so.

    5. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by rrossman2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Pharmacist can in the States... and they can also pay a large sum of money for a license that actually allows them to "write" prescriptions as well. Pharmacy Techs are really nothing more than take the script, pass the script on (maybe count the pills), tell you it's ready, and ring you out.

      My ex-gf went to the University of Pittsburgh for Pharmacology so I got to learn quite a bit about how it all works (and learned more in organic chem than I'd like to or ever had to seeing as I went IT)

    6. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Standards, the FDA doesn't have the time to inspect all the foreign pharmaceutical lines to the same extent that they inspect the American ones, and the difference is pretty significant. Also, just because a medication is generic does not guarantee that the body will react to it the same way that it reacts to the name brand. It's definitely not common, but it does happen from time to time and most of the time it's because the pills aren't really identical.

      That being said, the ultimate reason is that unless one has no insurance one has no meaningful idea as to the cost of the medicine as they pay the same cost either way.

    7. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I on the other hand seem to be very unlucky with about 20% of generics I get. Many times they're fine, but one in particular is terrible. I'd been prescribed Xanax for severe anxiety attacks, and the generic form actually makes me sick and nauseated to the point the anxiety seemed to be the better option. Originally they covered it but later implemented a generic-only policy. I had to fight my insurance company tooth to nail to get them to cover Xanax, which they did, after an absurd amount of time.

      In general I think it's not the worst policy in the world, but don't get them wrong -- insurance companies only do it to save them money, not you.

    8. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly enough, The whole hospital pharmacy apparatus becoming completely automated and mechanized within the next 20 years.

      LOL, why is that sad? You just scared the shit out of me about what the meat-based pharmacists are up to! :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Choosing the correct tactics by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Yeah, my understanding is that the FDA only regulates (for the purposes of generic vs brand name) the active ingredient. You could have some negative reaction to the fillers, casing, etc. And even the delivery/timing could be slightly different.

      A friend of mine was on Nexium, and his insurance made him switch to Protonix - a very close relative, so not really the same thing as a generic substitution... Anyway, he got headaches from Protonix, so his doctor had to write a letter explaining this to the insurance company before they would again pay for his Nexium. I'm sure the situation is similar with generics and insurance companies.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. What? by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A patent is going to expire. The company responds with marketing and by lowering it's price.

    That's just horrid~ Someone is working to hard to find ills.

    What's that? there are going to create a generic version of the drug they created? OMG!!1!!!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:What? by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does show how much they were raping the system and users, their cost have not gone down but wow its now much much much cheaper and yet they will still turn a profit

      let me shed a tear for them.

    2. Re:What? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NO one is shedding any tears. Iw as simply stating there is no story hee.

      And making a lot of money is a fair trade off for the amount of science they do, and the number of new drugs.

      Now it's expiring, and it will be cheaper.

      I would like to point out that the article has a lot of statements from the author with nothing to support them.

      The story her, if there really is one, is how the generic companies are whining they won't be able to compete with the lower prices.
      The point of generics was a low cost alternative. It' it's already low cost, they go away.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:What? by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. They never should have been allowed to create the drug or sell it in the first place. The whole idea of "whoever does the work is the one who should get the reward" is evil. Pharma companies should not be allowed to engage in research, earn profit, or do anything except bleed money into the pockets of lawyers and socialists. Anyone should be able to simultaneously cash in on another company's research and sue that company. Drugs happen by magic, and don't tell me otherwise; effort has nothing to do with it. Screw people with high cholesterol, they're old while entitlement-driven people are young, it doesn't affect the young so to hell with anyone except the young. I'm ENTITLED.

      May you die of a heart attack for want of an effective drug.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    4. Re:What? by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The company responds with marketing and by lowering it's price.

      Right, but they're not lowering their price as much as the generic. They're negotiating deals with your insurance company so your co-pay for the name brand will be lower than generics, even though the rate the insurance company actually pays for brand-name Lipitor would be higher than the generic, so you save $5 on a copay but the insurance risk pool loses $50, because the drug company is insulating you from the underlying costs and distorting your buying decision.

      It's classic drug company tactic- they'll hand out "coupons" or "drug benefit cards" that defray the excess cost of a brand-name copay over a generic copay, so if your brand-name copay on a drug is $40 and the generic is $15, Pfizer will pay you the $25 difference to buy the brand name. They can afford the difference because they're probably profiting over $100 on the bottle, you just don't see the cost to your insurance company at the point-of-sale, it gets turned into higher premiums. It's a big part of why prescription drug insurance is so expensive in the US, several states have banned manufacturer drug coupons and This American Life did a whole episode on it a year or two ago.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    5. Re:What? by leonardluen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i think there is a story here. we should compare this expiring patent to the copyrights (which it appears never expire, as they just extend it any time it gets close)

      So we see this patent expiring and the company that holds it is suddenly becoming more competitive to stay in business and the consumers are winning because of it.

      now i wonder what the *iaa would do if their copyrights were starting to expire...i suppose they would have to do something to remain competitive, and the consumers would win because they would be able to get cheap media.

      however the *iaa is lazy and don't want to have to do that extra work, and so instead they have fought to keep copyrights perpetual.

    6. Re:What? by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      What are you suggesting? That they slammed a few beers, got a bunch of chemicals from the local supply store, dumped them into a vat, and out came Lipitor with minimal effort? Or that someone was -this- close to creating Lipitor and Pfizer came in, said "we should move that over there," then patents the whole thing?

      Credit where credit is do. I do -not- like Pfizer, in fact you might even say I -hate- Pfizer, but your line of reasoning is absurd, regardless of my exaggerated examples.

  4. Capitalism by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3

    Hey, they are just taking care of their stockholders Nothing wrong with it, right?

    Capitalism, it just works, bitches.

    1. Re:Capitalism by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 2

      Well, I know, and I am not against the idea of money as incentive. But that, in no way, can justify immoral, unethical, psychopathic behavior of corporations in name of profit, and it can never be used to defend anything.

      I have seen this "but they are answerable only to their stockholders" (i.e. capitalism) argument here on slashdot more than enough to make my blood boil.

      Profit can never be allowed at the expense of person or society or humanity.

  5. In other news by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today Pfizer announced results of a new study showing that cholesterol has nothing to do with any health problems whatsoever, but water can kill you. Simultaneously they announced the start of trials of a new drug to control this menace, tentatively named hydroprofitor.

    1. Re:In other news by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More likely they will "invest research capital" into the "vastly superior" "lipitor HCl" or similar.

      This is a comon practice in the pharmacutical industry. Create a game changing drug, then milk it *FOREVER*, by tacking on a medically useless functional group to change the molecule enough to file for a new patent, covering the entire chemical family.

    2. Re:In other news by mirix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep. The first one that comes to mind is claritin.

      From what I remember, claritin is a... prodrug? - it metabolises to something else in vivo. So when they patent expired, they started marketing the metabolite instead, which they got a new patent on.

      I've heard of other cases where drugs, previously a mix of L and R isomers became generic, so they launched a new drug with just one of the isomers.

      Kind of nauseating, really.

      Loratadine was eventually approved by the FDA in 1993.[2] It accounted for 28% of Schering's total sales[citation needed]. The drug continued to be available only by prescription in the U.S. until it went off patent in 2002.[citation needed] It was then immediately approved for over-the-counter sales. Once it became an unpatented over-the-counter drug, the price dropped precipitously, and insurance companies no longer paid for it. In response, Schering launched an expensive advertising campaign to convince users to switch to desloratadine (descarboethoxyloratadine, trade name Clarinex), which is the active metabolite of loratadine. A 2003 study comparing the two drugs found that "There is no clinical advantage to switching a patient from loratadine to desloratadine.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    3. Re:In other news by mirix · · Score: 2

      Sorry for self reply,
      My recollection of chemistry is rather shit, so i bungled that. enantiomer. that's the word.

      I'll let wiki tell about the isomer differentiated drugs, there are some specific examples there too.

      "Enantiopure_drug"

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:In other news by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read the actual decision.
      There were a number of reasons why the actual decision is sane.
      To recap the high points of the slashdot thread.
      The actual claim forbidden was something like "Drinking water regularly can help prevent dehydration".

      Dehydration, in its medically significant form - is not usually caused by the lack of water.
      Drinking water when dehydrated for reasons other than not having access to water may do nothing, or be counter-productive.
      Drinking water regularly does nothing to stop you needing water in the future.
      Water is not special in providing hydration - coffee, fruit-juice, grapes, oranges, ... all do the same thing, as well, or better than water.

    5. Re:In other news by blakelarson · · Score: 2

      I'm an occasional user of Claritin. I remember when Clarinex came out and thought -- now why would I want this when Claritin works just fine and is pretty cheap? As far as I can tell, Clarinex died a quiet death. Good riddance.

  6. Protect profits over public health. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    Damn public! how dare they want affordable drugs for healthcare!!!!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Patent vs Copyright by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, if congress has been able to withstand the lobbying for indefinite patents, given the massive amount of money on the line as indicated by this single drug patent, how come they fold to the likes of Disney when it comes to copyright? Maybe it's the cuteness of the cartoon characters.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Patent vs Copyright by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's simple.... insurance companies have more lobbyists than pharmaceuticals. And insurance companies like generic drugs, because it lowers their costs, and increases profit of the insurance co..

    2. Re:Patent vs Copyright by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a rule, politicians are white, elitist, and rich.

      White rich elitists tend to eat overly calorific foods, that cause high cholesterol.

      As such, I would not be surprised if many politicians have scripts for cholesterol, hypertension, and liver disorders.

      Getting between your meal ticket and his life sustaining medications is not good PR.

      Compare to copyright, which is not life threatening or life regulating (at least once you pass a certain income bracket. Ahem) you can clearly spot the reasons why, aside from insider trading and the like, politicians don't get lobbied for quite the same things from the pharmecutical giants the same way they get lobbied for copyright extensions from big media.

      If you throw in the more tinfoil hat type thinking about the control of information and culture that makes the public easier to police and control, I think you have a winner.

    3. Re:Patent vs Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if congress has been able to withstand the lobbying for indefinite patents, given the massive amount of money on the line as indicated by this single drug patent, how come they fold to the likes of Disney when it comes to copyright?

      People seem to think congress caves into moneyed corporations. But that is not an accurate assessment. Congress does whatever gets it elected. Any congressperson who doesn't do what gets him/her elected loses the next election to whomever does do what gets them elected.

      What gets a politician elected? Media coverage gets politicians elected. What do you know about the candidates in any given election? You know what you see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in the news. Campaign donations can buy media coverage (advertisements). Improving (or harming) the local job market also tends to garner media coverage. So politicians do whatever gets them campaign donations and keeps their electorate employed--so they can get positive media coverage.

      Do you know what else generates media coverage? The media! Many elections are so close it takes only a small shift in opinions to change the outcome. A single story can make or break an election. Congress does whatever the media asks of them because the media have the power to swing an election. What key legislative issue is the media most concerned with? Copyrights! This is why the Copyright Term Extension Act passed by voice vote in both houses of congress in a single day with no debate--just days ahead of the 1998 election.

  8. HUUGE PROFIT MARGIN by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    They have a huge profit margin because of the stunning breakthrough they funded when they backed Bruce Roth.

    Roth first synthesized atorvastatin in 1985. For the discovery, he received the 1997 Warner-Lambert Chairman's Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, the 1999 Inventor of the Year Award from the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, the 2003 American Chemical Society Award for Creative Invention, the 2003 Gustavus John Esselen Award for Chemistry in the Public Service, the 2005 Iowa State University Distinguished Alumni Award, and the 2006 Pfizer Global Research and Development Achievement Award.

    Roth was named a 2008 Hero of Chemistry by the American Chemical Society (ACS).

    1. Re:HUUGE PROFIT MARGIN by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      Wait, he won inventor of the year in 1999 for something he invented in 1985?

  9. What's amazing is how they extended the patent by jader3rd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Phizer was able to extend the drug by getting new patents on it. Then for these past few months they paid off the generic drug makers to not create generics for the drug. A scheme known as "pay for delay". Heard about it yesterday on Marketplace and was shocked to hear that a generic drug company has to go to court after the patent has expried to official unexpire it. "This is the government policy, set up in the 1980s, to bring us lower drug prices." http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/lipitor-makes-way-generics

  10. Pfizer spends alot on doctors paying them to write by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Pfizer spends alot on doctors paying them to write scripts for pfizer drugs.

  11. Great, more incentive for doctors to overprescribe by Fished · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty much convinced that Lipitor is a scam, along with the whole "cholesterol" theory. This will just lead to more drug-laden zombies, and more overprescription for perfectly healthy people.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  12. Re:"Free" Marketplace by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

    The free market just kicked in. The drug companies are now playing meet or beat. Translation: competition works.
    What's wrong with that?

    The problem existed PRIOR to the patent expiring, where artificially high prices existed.
    Go tinker with that set of rules if you dare, but don' blame the free market just because prices
    come down the minute the market actually becomes free.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  13. This is not the way capitalism works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pfizer is a for-profit company, and that they want to patent their product and profit from their ingenuity is great. That's how capitalism works: sell a good product that people want to buy, turn a profit, succeed.

    However, drug patents last up to 20 years. Rather than riding heavily on Lipitor profits for that period of time, and releasing alternate versions of the same drug over and over again, wouldn't it have been prudent to turn efforts toward producing and patenting the Next Amazing Drug?

    They knew the day would come that Lipitor's patent would expire. If, in spite of the massive profits they've made from this and other products, they couldn't innovate anything to replace that massive chunk of profits, then they have to bow out gracefully instead of going through ridiculous, unsavory means to ensure revenue.

    Profiting morally from a good profit is capitalism. Tactics like this are not.

    1. Re:This is not the way capitalism works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make an interesting point, and I agree that we don't hear about those huge discoveries very often, but I worry that you have been horribly misled.

      I am a medical student, and I've spent years in basic science research, studying cancer and genetics. While certain aspects of healthcare aren't perfect (distribution of federal research funding, ill-gotten pharmaceutical gains, etc), I honestly believe that medicine has come a long, long way and continues to advance at fantastic pace.

      To address your specific comment:
      - There is no vaccine or cure for "the common cold", and likely, there never will be one, partly because "the common cold" can be caused by any of dozens of different pathogens. And by itself, rhinovirus, the oft-cited culprit, mutates far too quickly to make a cure or vaccine achievable.
      - A cure for Alzheimer's: Alzheimer's is still not understood fully enough to yield curative treatment, but research on the disease, especially on its genetics, has come VERY, VERY far. You would be amazed if you took a look.
      - Parkinson's: Sure, no cure on this either. But again, you would be amazed at the research that's been done. And you would be even more amazed to see what treatments are out there. In med school, we've met patients who have undergone treatment for Parkinson's, and their lives had improved significantly with little inconvenience. One treatment: a little surgically-implanted a little remote-control patch in your brain that supplies dopamine to the right shots, helping patients to regain independence and control their movements again. Absolutely incredible.

      It's like you picked out random things about which medicine's understanding is still fuzzy, and you used them to illustrate that medical research is completely stagnant. I disagree fully. I dare you to go back 20 years and get infected with HIV. Treatment of that devastating infection has made astounding progress in just a couple of decades. Go back a little further, before the smallpox vaccine. Compare current treatments for diabetic retinopathy or macular degeneration with those available maybe 15 years ago. Check out the strides - the LEAPS - that have been made in cancer genetics in just 20 years and how they've improved the speed of diagnosis and treatment of cancer, and have significantly improved prognosis.

      Medical science isn't stalled. Yes there are complicating factors. But to say it has stalled is to ignore the massive efforts and accomplishments of scientists who have significantly improved everyone's health.

  14. Old News, by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2

    Canada has had generic Lipitor for over a year now.

  15. I'll just add... by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

    that the quoted David A. Balto is an anti-trust attorney, and from his statements likely working for a generic drug manufacturer(s). He argued for the ATT/T-Mobile merger, so one can tell he's not particular about which side he argues.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  16. If you take a *satin drug... by El_Oscuro · · Score: 2

    All of these cholesterol drugs including Lipitor work by mucking about with your liver. I am type 1 diabetic and my doctor prescribed a low dose of Zocor (a similar cholesterol drug). After about a year I started experiencing weird join pain and nerve problems. My first concern was ALS - I knew someone who died of it. I saw doctors, including a neurologist, had lots of tests done . Nothing. It wasn't until a year later that I read an article in the LA times about Zocor being withdrawn from the market at a higher dose because of the same symptom that I realized what was causing them. None of my doctors told me anything.

    My cholesterol isn't really that high. My doctors prescribed it because of the diabetes. I stopped taking it and the pain improved dramatically. At one point it was so bad I could barely lift the top off of a coffee can.

    The other side is the garbage that we call food. Most of it is loaded with trans-fatty oils and added sugars. Forget all of the claims on the front of the box - get a microscope and read the ingredient list on the back. If there are hydrogenated oils or lots of added sugar (any form of corn syrup, anything with *ose, "designer" sugars such as honey, molasses, evaporated cane juice, etc. Try to find foods that have fewer ingredients that can pronounce you actually might have in your kitchen. They are available and often don't cost much more. Some of the more reliable brands are Kashi, Amy's, Trader Joe's, Edy's, Martins, etc.

    If you take any of these drugs, look them up on youtube (don't bother with webmd or anything similar as they are useless). The results might scare you.

    --
    "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    1. Re:If you take a *satin drug... by toomanyhandles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't buy your food in a box. Cook it yourself.

  17. what a waste this company is. by toomanyhandles · · Score: 2
    fuck Pfizer, they never developed much of their own, they bought Warner-Lambert and others to acquire this drug and other drug candidates.

    They followed this up by closing down their most productive R& D sites globally.

    Vast personal profit for the execs, decades of experienced researchers tossed to the wind, and their "if we screened X million candidates with this robotic platform and got N useful hits, if we screen X^5 million via robotic screen we'll get N^5 final candidates and reap the rewards" strategy didn't work worth a darn. Big surprise.

    That's what happens when suits (some hired from companies with a GREAT track record for drug development- like.... McDonalds) take over a scientific company.

    A few more rounds of boosting stock price via layoffs and this will be a little has-been of a company.

    Nice work there guys. Way to destroy a company. You could have done the same thing by just buying a pizza chain or something and selling off assets for personal gain, and not cost the real human race useful medications.

  18. Pfizer did not discover Lipitor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pfizer did not discover or invent Lipitor. Lipitor was discovered and invented by Warner Lambert/Parke-Davis in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in an industrial setting, not academic. Warner Lambert/Parke-Davis partnered with Pfizer to develop and market the drug and share the profits. From the profits of Lipitor alone, Pfizer was able to buy and takeover Warner Lambert/Parke-Davis, where it closed the Ann Arbor site a few years later in 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02krhNFfEq4). Of the 2200 scientists at the Ann Arbor site, approximately 600 remained with the company, of which approximately 300 relocated to Groton, CT, Pfizer's legacy discovery research site. The other 300 scientists relocated to sites in St. Louis, MO (winding down and eventually closing), La Jolla, CA, and Sandwich, England (now in the process of closing - over 2000 jobs lost). In these relocations, Pfizer was very generous and bought families homes for the original price and paid to relocate employees and their families across the world. Pharmaceutical site closures are very expensive and impact families and disrupt local economies significantly; purchasing employees homes is an incentive to retain talent. Pfizer assisted employees buy new homes by paying for real estate agents and paying closing costs on homes. In 2009, Pfizer bought Wyeth Laboratories and laid-off tens-of-thousands of scientists, many of them from Ann Arbor, MI, its most successful discovery research site ever based on the site talent, technology, and number of marketed drugs from that site, Groton, CT, and many from Wyeth various sites in the U.S. Several years ago, Pfizer was able to reduce the cost of manufacture of Lipitor more than 200-fold using a series of natural wildtype and industrially modified enzymes.

    Pfizer's former CEO Jeffrey B. Kindler and former CEO of McDonalds, became so unpopular with the rank-and-file that he earned two nick-names, first "McBurger," and finally and more commonly known as "CLOWN SHOES" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clgRId8x0ZM). Employees would and still post about dissatisfaction with the company's direction and leadership on BioFind.com (http://biofind.com/rumor).

    1. Re:Pfizer did not discover Lipitor... by toomanyhandles · · Score: 4, Informative

      You neglect to mention that now in 2010/ 2011 Pfizer is closing down the sites to which they so "graciously" relocated a small percentage of their researchers (300 of 2200 is a crummy percentage, and that from just ONE site that closed at that time). Small investment in 2008 for a bump in stock price in 2011 for laying off more staff: more stock profit for the suits.

  19. Example of a publicly developed vaccine by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a vaccine to prevent a virus that causes cervical cancer. Unless you are living in a cave you would have heard of it. The development and even the US FDA trials were paid for by the Australian taxpayer, yet in the USA it sells for far more than anywhere else becuase that is what the market will bear. The US drug company that licenced it is not paying any more per dose than anyone else either, that extra money is pure profit. That's just one very blatant example of many.
    I suggest you pay more attention before writing "bears only the most tenuous connection to the truth" then following that with something that is incorrect.

    1. Re:Example of a publicly developed vaccine by rdnetto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Universities don't discover drugs. They discover mechanisms. Drug companies make drugs that work on those mechanisms. I suppose, if the Aussie taxpayers really did finance all of Gardasil, they ought to be intelligent enough to extract some pretty damned good fees for the US patent rights. If they can charge much more, but don't pay more, then what kind of chumps are running AU? Sure as hell not the CSIRO guys who went after Buffalo.

      Probably the kind that care more about saving lives and recouping their costs than n figure profits.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    2. Re:Example of a publicly developed vaccine by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't have the slightest clue as to why you're modded at +5, but I do know that you have literally no clue as to what in the hell you're talking about. I assume you're referring to the anti HPV vaccine Cevarix rather than Gardasil because you mention "the Australian taxpayer" and some of the technology used in Cevarix was discovered at Uni. Queensland. You conveniently neglect to mention that the Queensland researchers were collaborating with others at Georgetown, the Uni. of Rochester and the US National Cancer Institute, among others. The technology behind the discoveries made at these places was licensed to GlaxoSmithKline, a British company. The idea that the Australian taxpayer footed the bill for the FDA trials in the US is, frankly, idiotic. The trials were conducted by Glaxo, obviously. Additionally, there is no "US drug company that licenced [sic] it", it's being sold by Glaxo here just as it is everywhere else.

      I know it's a crying shame that none of this fits into your wacky worldview where all corporations represent the nexus of evil and steal all their product ideas from "the people", but I guess you'll just have to find some way to get over it. I suggest you take some of your own advice about "paying more attention before writing" before your next post.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Liars and Idiots by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Best selling drug of all time? Never heard of aspirin?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  23. Re:Great, more incentive for doctors to overprescr by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, part of me wonders the same thing. There has been research published recently that suggests that the link between serum cholesterol and cardiovascular disease may not be as direct as once thought. If the thing that we're measuring does not have a direct correlation to future disease, then the drug we're taking to lower the measurement might not have any real benefit. Statins like Lipitor have probably improved the health of a lot of people, but they may still be overprescribed.

    I mean, TFA itself says Lipitor is "the best-selling drug of all time." Really? Would that many people really have died of heart attacks had they not been prescribed this drug?

    People talk about how "modern diet, modern society is killing us" -- again, really? You should have seen how my grandfather ate. He'd trim the thick ribbons of fat from the ends of his pork chops so he could eat them last, then he'd eat the fat off everybody else's plate. He lived to a reasonable age, long before statins were ever invented. Sure, that's anecdotal, but where are the statistics? Was heart disease caused by high cholesterol really that much more common among my grandfather's generation? Or my father's? So much more common that it proves that almost everybody ought to be on Lipitor? My gut tells me no. Some studies from England (where my grandfather lived) suggest rates of heart disease did increase through the postwar years, but then started to decline in the 1970s -- again, before statins were even available. One does have to wonder.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. Pro tip by Jay+L · · Score: 2

    When your argument spurs hundreds of Slashdotters to defend both patents and big pharma... you lose.

  26. Of all time? by rossdee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely Alcohol is the best selling drug of all time

  27. Not Generic YET by nbetcher · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lipitor has had an ANDA filed for a generic version by Watson, yes. However, the law allows Pfizer to grant a 180 day exclusivity contract to a manufacturer of their choice (in this case Watson) for the ANDA. To those affected by this drug going generic: IT HAS NOT GONE TRULY GENERIC YET! Wait until the 180 day exclusivity contract expires (in 179 days) and the true "invisible hand" will take effect in the market.

    In the meantime, you're most likely going to need to get the BRAND NAME Lipitor for it to be covered to the fullest extent by your pharmacy benefit manager ("insurance company")! These PBMs get rebates (NOT kickbacks) to lower the cost of the brand-name drug, so it's financially advantageous to the member to not cover the generic yet. Here's why:

    Lipitor (brand) 90ct bottle = $550 retail, minus $330 in rebates = $220 total cost of drug.
    atorvastatin by Watson (generic) 90ct bottle = $530 retail, minus $0 in rebates (Watson doesn't offer any) = $550 total cost of drug.
    (These amounts are fictional, however they represent true real-world scenarios.)

    Disclaimer: I work for one of the US' largest Pharmacy Benefit Managers in the Clinical Review department. We had a meeting today regarding all of our Medicare Part-D patients and how they're affected by this specific drug going generic. No suits were involved and the members are receiving the best possible drug savings until the exclusivity contract expires. Once it expires the new generics will be placed on the tier-1 ("generic") copay structure.

  28. There's a patent on alcohol ? by mbone · · Score: 2

    RE: "Patent Expires On Best Selling Drug of All Time"

    There's a patent on alcohol ? Who knew ?

  29. If Pfizer... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    ...beats the generics by selling at a generics price, I don't really see what the problem is.

  30. Re:Cancer Treatment in Canada by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    I am Canadian, and I love our health care service. My mother died of cancer. Sadly they were not able to save her, but she received top end treatments in the attempt to save her (Chemotherapy etc). Total cost to her estate: $50 for the ambulance that took her to the hospital just before the end. Despite what many critics of our health care system often say, there was no waiting list, she had no delays in receiving her treatments etc.
    Recently, my wife had to go in for eye surgery to straighten her eyes. It wasn't critical surgery, and she did have delays before it took place, but those may have been a natural part of diagnosing the problem. Cost to us: nothing. It was all covered.
    These two instances were both covered by the standard health care that everyone receives in Canada. Despite what all the critics say, the system works up here.

    I saw someone make a good bullet point about the difference between health care in somewhere like Canada or Britain and the US: Up here we have a health care system. Down in the US you have a healthcare industry :P

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  31. Re:Great, more incentive for doctors to overprescr by fnj · · Score: 2

    Yeah, keep bleating "4 legs good, 2 legs bad." You can swallow the bullshit if you want, but the system is coming around to a better understanding of arteriosclerosis, aka atherosclerosis. For example, see Inflammation and atherosclerosis, Inflammation in atherosclerosis, and a lot of other research. Your "high LDL, low HDL" blood content has a correlation with arteriosclerosis, but which is the cause and which the response? Eh?

    Pay special attention to findings like:

    ... certain treatments that reduce coronary risk also limit inflammation. In the case of lipid lowering with statins, this anti-inflammatory effect does not appear to correlate with reduction in low-density lipoprotein levels.

    You are also seeing conventional medicine slowly (much too slowly) come around to an understanding what a wonderful food the egg is, how the phobia about butter and the fad for margarine have not been a good thing, and other truths you would probably label as quackery.

    Deposits of cholesterol are the body's response to arterial pathology, not the cause of it.