Drug Firm Offers $1 Version of $750 Daraprim Pill (chicagotribune.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drug Firm Offers $1 Version of $750 Daraprim Pill (chicagotribune.com)

Posted by Soulskill on Sunday October 25, 2015 @04:40AM from the market-corrections dept.

An anonymous reader writes: We recently read about a U.S. company that bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim and then boosted the price over 5,000%. There was widespread outrage over this blatant price gouging, most of it focused on hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli. Now, a San Diego-based drug company called Imprimis has stepped in to fill the void. They announced that they'll be supplying capsules containing the same active ingredients in Daraprim for $1 per dose. Their CEO, Mark Baum, said they'll also start making alternative versions of other generic medicines that have skyrocketed in price lately. "Imprimis, which primarily makes compounded drugs to treat cataracts and urological conditions, will work with health insurers and prescription benefit managers in each state to make its new capsules and other compounded generic medicines widely available, Baum said."

105 of 168 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let me be the first to put this here by drinkypoo · 2015-10-25 04:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

This guy is a multiple-time asshole

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Chris+Mattern · 2015-10-25 04:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So he's making cheap generics while shorting biotech stocks. Excuse me while I weep copious tears for the company that hiked its medicine price 100 times and expected to make a profit on it.
2. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Lumpy · 2015-10-25 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  And we need more like him. Pharma companies that outright RAPE people for maximum profits do not deserve to exist.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-25 04:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  People who try to increase the price of drugs out of the range of people who need it but can't afford it should also see an equivalent price increase.
  If the little guy can't afford $100 pills, it should cost $10K for the millionaire. How do you like your "it will take all the money I own and yet I'll die in 100 days, fucking rich prick?
4. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by denzacar · 2015-10-25 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  No. He (Shkreli) is hiking prices AND shorting biotech.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
5. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by fustakrakich · 2015-10-25 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I, for one, certainly wouldn't mind reading the emails between these two characters.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
6. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-25 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There is no room for ethics on capitalism. The market sets the rate, based on what people are to pay. Since people will die if they don't take the drug, they will pay every penny they have (or that their insurance is willing to give).
  What are you, some kind of communist? Expecting companies to act in the interests of the general good, guided by morality...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Carewolf · 2015-10-25 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  And we need more like him. Pharma companies that outright RAPE people for maximum profits do not deserve to exist.
  We are talking about the figurative "rapist" here, not the new guy undercutting him.
8. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by lgw · 2015-10-25 06:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No. He (Shkreli) is hiking prices AND shorting biotech.
  And he made a fortune.
  People don't get this: this 5x drug price hike thing was all theatre. He wasn't trying to make some trivial amount off the pill, he was trolling. And important politicians bit, making comments to the press that dropped biotech stocks by about 25% over fears of "political action". Fucker made a mint.
  You'd think at least here on /. we'd be better at spotting trolls!
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by zippthorne · 2015-10-25 06:19 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Which is why generics are typically pretty affordable, except where there are not enough manufacturers competing. The problem is that you want new drugs, that you previously couldn't buy for any price, to be priced similarly to generics once discovered, and drug companies want to segment the market to maximize profits. If they could, I suspect they would have a different price for each individual.
  Insurance exacerbates this problem, because patients with it don't see the price where it counts, so they don't pressure doctors to try less expensive/generic drugs first. Insurance companies are evaluated on percent of premiums paid on claims, so they also don't have an incentive to cut costs—the higher he medical costs are, the more they can charge in premiums.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
10. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sjames · 2015-10-25 06:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And that's why he belongs in the slammer. He had not a single concern for people's lives as long as he could make big bux tap dancing on the line between shrewd investments and fraud.
11. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by TheReaperD · 2015-10-25 06:22 · Score: 2
  
  I wasn't aware of the biotech stock shorting. If he really did this to create an artificial price drop in biotech stocks, that could lead to a nasty SEC investigation. Normally when some rich prick commits a crime, they get a slap on the wrist or off completely. In this case, it sounds like his target was other rich pricks and the companies they represent. They will show him no mercy. Not that I'm going to shed any tears for him while he's "Bubba's" playmate in prison.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
12. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by XxtraLarGe · 2015-10-25 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  There is no room for ethics on capitalism. The market sets the rate, based on what people are to pay. Since people will die if they don't take the drug, they will pay every penny they have (or that their insurance is willing to give).
  
  What are you, some kind of communist? Expecting companies to act in the interests of the general good, guided by morality...
  I've heard rumors of companies doing that, but I'm sure they are only rumors. Yes, capitalism is rotten to the core, and only the use of force in order to get people to comply with your new world order will do!
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
13. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by whoever57 · 2015-10-25 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  You'd think at least here on /. we'd be better at spotting trolls!
  I don't know about you, but I proposed that his goal was to make money on a short bet. I spotted the trolling.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
14. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by alvinrod · 2015-10-25 06:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You'd have a point if there weren't a company making a cheaply available $1 generic (and then pledging to do the same with several other drugs). But don't let that get in the way of your angry screed.
15. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Kierthos · 2015-10-25 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  And he raised the price 50x, not 5x. He still hasn't lowered it despite saying he'd do so.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
16. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sjames · 2015-10-25 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  That's why I suggest we bring back the public good condition in corporate charters. If we would actually enforce that, things would improve.
17. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by lgw · 2015-10-25 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I can only hope you're right. I'm not sure this kind of price manipulation is illegal - there'd have to be a law to cover something this indirect, which seems unlikely, unless he bragged about his intent in email or somesuch. But then, he might have.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
18. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Nemyst · 2015-10-25 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  There is no room for ethics on capitalism. The market sets the rate, based on what people are to pay. Since people will die if they don't take the drug, they will pay every penny they have (or that their insurance is willing to give).
  That'd be all fine and well if that were the case, but that's the kicker: from what we know, he had no interest in selling the pills and knew full well that the rate he set was not based on what people are willing to pay. He did this to cause a scare and drop biotech stock prices so he could reap the benefits. This has very little to do with the basic offer and demand logic of capitalism and everything to do with crooks corrupting every system they find.
19. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by jvkjvk · 2015-10-25 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  Why do you not take your explanation to the obvious conclusion?
  The guy willing to sell the drug at $1 a pill is just competition, which is also a capitalistic concept, yes?
  Welcome to capitalism. The market is setting the rate.
20. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by ganjadude · 2015-10-25 07:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  capitalism at work
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
21. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by samwichse · 2015-10-25 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Tagged: bigkarma
  Yup
22. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by ArchieBunker · 2015-10-25 07:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh shit he could possibly face MONTHS of incarceration in a minimum security jail and fined 10% of his profits.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
23. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by gweihir · 2015-10-25 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be confusing people.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
24. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Kernel+Kurtz · 2015-10-25 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  ^this
  Wish I had mod points.
25. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Aighearach · 2015-10-25 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't indirect. This is exactly what the law already covers.
  These types of investigations are done slowly.
26. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sound+vision · 2015-10-25 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  And how many peoples health were jeopardized while they fucked around?
27. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-10-25 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  On second thought, don't. He would probably enjoy it.
28. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-10-25 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Which is why generics are typically pretty affordable, except where there are not enough manufacturers competing"
  And if a little-known generic becomes famous again, and in demand, guess what? People begin making it agin, and it becomes affordable.
29. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Solandri · 2015-10-25 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  There is no room for ethics on capitalism. The market sets the rate, based on what people are to pay. Since people will die if they don't take the drug, they will pay every penny they have (or that their insurance is willing to give).
  Actually, that only happens when there's some "ethical" government regulation prohibiting a competing company from making the drug. Like a patent.
  
  In an "unethical" capitalistic society, if someone buys up all of drug which costs 50 cents per pill to make and tries to sell it for $750, someone else will just start making that drug for 50 cents and try to sell it at $700. Then someone else tries to sell it for $650, then $600, and so on. Until the price comes down to just above 50 cents and the competitor is afraid to undercut the price anymore because then the margin won't be enough to cover his marketing and distribution expenses.
30. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by vux984 · 2015-10-25 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  In an "unethical" capitalistic society, if someone buys up all of drug which costs 50 cents per pill to make and tries to sell it for $750, someone else will just start making that drug for 50 cents and try to sell it at $700. Then someone else tries to sell it for $650, then $600, and so on. Until the price comes down to just above 50 cents and the competitor is afraid to undercut the price anymore because then the margin won't be enough to cover his marketing and distribution expenses.
  No. Someone else shows up to make the drug for 50 cents and the person selling the drug for $750 just buys them outright, or immediately drops the price to below profitability to drive the competitor under, then jacks it up to $750 again to refill the warchest for the next silly competitor.
  And it's not like you can just spin up a drug producing lab to export prescription medicine for human consumption.
  The only outfit with the resources to do that is another drug company. So, at best "capitalism" devolves to oligopoply, and at worst to a monopoly.
  Take a look at the M&A for the worlds large pharmaceuticle companies. Competition is dropping like a stone, and prices are going up.
31. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Jack+Griffin · 2015-10-25 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  What are you, some kind of communist? Expecting companies to act in the interests of the general good, guided by morality...
  It happens in smaller countries where the capitalists might know someone they're trying to fuck over, hence still use their conscience in the decision making process.
  It's the monkeysphere. The US is it too vast a country, so it's too easy for one individual to fuck over another with no consequences.
32. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sg_oneill · 2015-10-25 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  It really depends on what mood the judge or jury are in. If they decide his actions are malicious and coud have endangered lives, the guy might well end up growing old on the inside.
  Though I'm sure his baby face will make him popular with "Bubba" the 200 pound polynesian sex offender.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
33. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Fjandr · 2015-10-25 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, he pissed off politicians and their rich donors (the owners of other biotech stocks damaged by the fallout). He's the type of person they make an example out of, because he doesn't have powerful friends.
34. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by thegarbz · 2015-10-25 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's amazing that this isn't considered a blatant form of insider trading. It probably slips through the exact rules but this guy is the personification of what is wrong in the world.
35. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-25 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  They got lucky. The assumption was that no-one else would be able to undercut their $750 price on this drug, but they were wrong. There are many others were that assumption held true though.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
36. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by lgw · 2015-10-26 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's not any kind of insider trading, as he did everything publicly. He didn't lie to the press or anything like that. I'd be surprised if there is a law to cover this specific kind of thing.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
37. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by thegarbz · 2015-10-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  False, he had access to non-public information, i.e. that a company will suddenly shake up the market and presumably cause major embarrassment to companies who's stock he shorted by increasing the price of a critical drug by a huge amount.
38. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by hal9035 · 2015-10-26 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  No. Its America at it's finest. Profits are the goal. Did you forget?
39. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2015-10-28 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  What laws, specifically, do you think we should have to prevent this sort of thing? It's easy to say "this guy should be in jail", but with government overreach as bad as it is currently, we can't just give them license to throw people in jail for being a douche.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
40. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2015-10-28 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I'm going to shed any tears for him while he's "Bubba's" playmate in prison.
  Nobody deserves to be raped.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
41. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sjames · 2015-10-28 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Just recognize it as yet another form of insider trading and pump and dump rolled into one.
42. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by RockDoctor · 2015-10-29 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  If he really did this to create an artificial price drop in biotech stocks, that could lead to a nasty SEC investigation.
  Ummm, on what grounds?
  If he did everything in the open - public trades, public statements - then I can't think that he's actually done that is wrong. What stock exchange regulators generally object to is people making profit by using privileged access to information which the rest of the market doesn't have.
  Granted the man is an arsehole of the first water. But that isn't actually illegal.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Shocked and amazed by hideki.adam · 2015-10-25 04:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wow So there are drug companies out there who /aren't/ out to gouge every last penny out of the sick, disabled and dying... My faith in humanity just increased somewhat -.o Just hope Imprimis can actually afford to supply everyone at that rate, they're probably taking a loss doing that.
1. Re:Shocked and amazed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-25 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Most drugs are dirt cheap to make, especially when its been around for a while and you don't have to do actual R&D to invent it in the first place. I'm sure they are making a good profit at $1 a pill.
2. Re:Shocked and amazed by nanoflower · 2015-10-25 05:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's usually not the manufacturing that is so expensive but the research and testing needing to get the drug on the market. In this case neither company needs to do any research or additional testing with the FDA since the drug is well known and has been on the market for 60 years. That doesn't apply with a brand new drug which may have to go through years of testing even if the first version is perfect with no side effects.
3. Re:Shocked and amazed by meerling · 2015-10-25 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  Of course the government does or pays for a LOT of that research and testing, but even when it was 100% government funded, it doesn't stop the pharmaceutical companies from claiming massive R&D costs they 'have to recover', despite them not having paid a single cent in the first place. This isn't paranoia or conspiracy stuff, it's well documented and has even been the subject of journalistic investigations and both print & tv articles. I'm sure you can find the references yourself, if you can somehow filter out all the keyword spam the net is bloated with these days.
4. Re:Shocked and amazed by fahrbot-bot · 2015-10-25 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  It's usually not the manufacturing that is so expensive but the research and testing needing to get the drug on the market. In this case neither company needs to do any research or additional testing with the FDA since the drug is well known and has been on the market for 60 years. That doesn't apply with a brand new drug which may have to go through years of testing even if the first version is perfect with no side effects.
  According to a study done by Tufts University, Cost to Develop and Win Marketing Approval for a New Drug Is $2.6 Billion that "cost" includes (quoting these Washington Post and New York Times write-ups:
  
  Its estimate includes another $1.2 billion in foregone returns investors would have otherwise seen while the drug was under development.
  Basically, the money investors *could* have earned by simply putting the other money used for development into the market over the development period. So not actual cost, but lost earnings.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
5. Re:Shocked and amazed by sjames · 2015-10-25 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Of course in that case, rational doctors should consider the new expensive drug (with no time in the market to prove itself) as second or third line options and start with the cheap well proven generics.
6. Re:Shocked and amazed by Harlequin80 · 2015-10-25 10:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Loss of earnings on an investment are still a cost. Normally this figure is calculated on the zero risk rate of return of things like govt bonds or triple A rated stocks.
  If you don't see this as a real cost I would like to borrow all your money from you a 0% interest please.
7. Re:Shocked and amazed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-25 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  > I would like to borrow all your money from you
  > at 0% interest please.
  Sorry, my banker offered me 0.03% a few years ago and locked me in. And he's bought up almost every house to come on the market in this town since that point.
8. Re:Shocked and amazed by gl4ss · 2015-10-25 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  the cost of research OR cost of manufacturing doesn't dictate the price at the counter.
  what people can pay and how much they can ask for it dictates the price.
  the 750$ for example had only the reasoning that "people need this and nobody else sells this" to make the price hike to 750 (it was a bit cheaper previously) - so yeah, r&d price for it having had a reason for it being expensive is pretty much baloney.
  after the risky bit of research has been done they have it - it's after that they make the decision to actually produce it and that depends only on if they can produce it at a profit - and the price is generally just a random number based on how much they can ask for regardless of how much it cost to come up with the product.
  the more essential and the more exclusive the medicine is to the producer, the higher the price. they're generally not even shooting for the max production/max profit line - instead many med companies in regards of their usa market seem to shoot for minimum production max profit. blame your broken medical insurance system.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
9. Re:Shocked and amazed by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2015-10-28 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  That can't be right, since they have costs not related to either of those things (management, actual manufacturing, security, etc.). They do spend a lot on advertising, but even the R&D is a ton of money.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
10. Re:Shocked and amazed by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2015-10-28 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the government rarely pays for clinical trials anymore (it does happen, but when it does, it's mostly just Phase I, which is by far the cheapest). Even if the drug was discovered and preclinical studies were done with government money, clinical trial costs are the biggest part of getting a drug to market, and - at least nowadays - that's mostly not government-funded.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a profit by Alain+Williams · 2015-10-25 04:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

a good, healthy profit by helping those who are ill, but not an outrageous one on the back of gouging the sick.
Call me a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-25 04:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

But this whole story just seems... odd. Just to rehash it - a billionaire deuce canoe "with much evil" buys a company and hikes a drug price, and goes on TV to brag about it. Anyone not mentally retarded knows what happens here, it generates such outcry against the canoe captain that he gets 24x7 news coverage for a few weeks. Nobody is naive enough to think they would be immune to backlash here. Before the price hike can have any real long-term impact, angel company #2 comes out and says they'll supply our little angels with this miracle for $1, because think of the children.
Does anyone not find this odd? I mean, I don't know what the world has done to me, but it sounds like a setup from the very beginning. Either a bid to kill off the original company, to drive up stock in angel company #2, or some other motive that I just can't fathom.
1. Re:Call me a skeptic by kheldan · 2015-10-25 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  You know.. I left this comment, and now you've got me thinking. How many other people would react the same way I just reacted to it, but who have the money to actually invest? Maybe plenty.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
2. Re: Call me a skeptic by roc97007 · 2015-10-25 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  I think he's saying there is the whiff of smoke, (hence 'odd' not 'criminal') but whether it's a cook stove or a forest fire hasn't yet been established.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:Call me a skeptic by Aristos+Mazer · 2015-10-25 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He didn't go on TV to "brag" about it until the Internet got ahold of the story. And I wouldn't call it bragging -- he seemed (to me when I saw the story) to think in his own twisted mind that this was a greatest good argument -- that him making lots of money off of other people's lives would somehow help his business help other people. Bragging would be if he thought he was getting away with evil. He seemed to think he wasn't. He's still evil, but not inside his own head.
  The angel company is a new startup that is trying to break into the market, and this is cheap advertising for them, even though they're going to lose money on the pills at that rate. It's a brilliant move, and an example of why you can only push a monopoly position so far before someone will find a way to undercut you.
  Long and short of it: I don't think there's any conspiracy here.
4. Re:Call me a skeptic by Lendrick · 2015-10-25 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, I don't think it's odd, considering that the price of the pill was originally $13 each. If one person were pulling the strings at both companies, it would be absolutely idiotic to hike the price just so they can eventually *cut* the price to less than a 10th of the original cost.
5. Re:Call me a skeptic by MightyMartian · 2015-10-25 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  The guy is a grade a sociopath. I keel saying that when sociopaths out themselves they should be removed from society.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
6. Re:Call me a skeptic by Carewolf · 2015-10-25 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  But this whole story just seems... odd. Just to rehash it - a billionaire deuce canoe "with much evil" buys a company and hikes a drug price, and goes on TV to brag about it. Anyone not mentally retarded knows what happens here, it generates such outcry against the canoe captain that he gets 24x7 news coverage for a few weeks. Nobody is naive enough to think they would be immune to backlash here. Before the price hike can have any real long-term impact, angel company #2 comes out and says they'll supply our little angels with this miracle for $1, because think of the children.
  Does anyone not find this odd? I mean, I don't know what the world has done to me, but it sounds like a setup from the very beginning. Either a bid to kill off the original company, to drive up stock in angel company #2, or some other motive that I just can't fathom.
  Apparently he shorted the stock and profitted off the dropping share price caused by the outrage, plus bonus for increasing revenue this quarter.
7. Re:Call me a skeptic by Razed+By+TV · 2015-10-25 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's certainly convenient for Imprimis.
  
  That said, its possible that there exists a manufacturing source for compounded drugs that doesn't exist for the usual drug distribution model. If Imprimis has the capability to undercut Daraprim and still make a profit, it makes sense to do it as soon as possible. The greater the price disparity, the better Imprimis looks. If they knock Daraprim out of the market, they can establish themselves as the main supplier of the drug.
  
  I guess that does little to assuage fears of some greater conspiracy going on... Maybe Imprimis poisons their patients, and Daraprim comes sweeping to the rescue. Maybe Shkreli has money betting on the failure of his company. Or maybe he just missed this possibility.
8. Re:Call me a skeptic by drinkypoo · 2015-10-25 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The guy is a grade a sociopath. I keel saying that when sociopaths out themselves they should be removed from society.
  If he caused real harm (someone has cropped up to stop that from happening) then there's a real chance that someone would take it upon themselves to go forth and remove him, in a spasm of grief and rage over the consequences. So while you're right, the only mechanism needed for that is our ongoing neglect of the mental health system in this nation.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Call me a skeptic by houghi · 2015-10-25 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  There was no monopoly position here. Otherwise the other company would not be allowed to offer the 1USD pill
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
10. Re:Call me a skeptic by beerbear · 2015-10-26 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Psychopath. Sociopaths are pretty random and not result-driven in what they do. The Joker = Sociopath. Dexter = Psychopath (even tho the series claims he's a sociopath).
  
  --
  Hold my beer and watch this!
Mark Baum: HERO. by kheldan · 2015-10-25 04:57 · Score: 2

I don't have a chronic or terminal disease, but if I had money lying around I'd invest it in this guy's company, just to encourge them to continue being one of the few anti-assholes of the world. More power to 'em.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:Mark Baum: HERO. by roc97007 · 2015-10-25 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'd want to contribute to his personal bodyguards...
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a pro by The+Raven · 2015-10-25 05:14 · Score: 1

They've been losing money for four years, about 10M a year. It's a startup. All in all, this is pretty cheap advertising for them. But be aware that this is an advertisement. When Chevy says that they're truck will get 50MPG, get you to Colorado, and get you laid by the model onscreen you don't take them at their word.
Don't assume Imprimis is amazing because they put out an ad for their services.

--
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
THere's a catch by willworkforbeer · 2015-10-25 05:16 · Score: 3, Funny

"they'll be supplying capsules containing the same active ingredients in Daraprim for $1 per dose."

But you need 750 doses per day. Dammit Big Pharma, I think I'm out and you pull me back in.

--
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Capitalism at work by stikves · 2015-10-25 05:17 · Score: 1

Really. This is a (rare) sighting of Capitalism doing good. There is an inefficiency (high price), and somebody comes in to fill in the void to make money.
(I hope there are no ulterior motives, though).
1. Re:Capitalism at work by JBMcB · 2015-10-25 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  The cost increase to $750 was NOT an example of capitalism, but getting the drug for $1 now instead of $12 IS.
  The price hike is absolutely capitalism. Someone thought that the market would bear that price for a good. Unfortunately for that person, it's a commodity item, and any other company could come along and charge much, much less. That happened.
  Of course, we're ignoring the byzantine, highly regulated pharmaceutical distribution channels that can choke out competition.
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
2. Re: Capitalism at work by v1 · 2015-10-25 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I wonder though... at a dollar a pill... when you compare it to 750, it seems insanely tiny. But look at your bottle of ibuprofin, at $13 for 1,000 capsules, you see that even at a buck a pill they are still easily able to stay in the black.
  I realize not every pill has the same manufacturing cost, but they are at least within an order of magnutude of each other for the most part. At a buck a pill, that bottle above would be $1,000. It's $13, and they're still making a margin off it. I'd be surprised if this $750 drug costs over 76 times as much to manufacture in quantity as another drug.
  They're trying to recoup an R&D lost. I get that. That's OK. But they've had years to do that. That's precisely why we have patents. But when your time is up, that knowledge is transferred to the public. It's up to you as a developer to use your time wisely and recoup your investment and reap a reward for your innovation. But then you have to give it up. If you still don't feel you've managed to get enough back out of the system by that point, then you're doing something wrong, and have no one to blame but yourself.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
3. Re:Capitalism at work by jedidiah · 2015-10-25 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. The price hike was classic MONOPOLY behavior.
  This idiot thought he had a monopoly on a drug that was well out of patent. The whole thing was idiotic and just screaming for a competitive beat down. It didn't even make sense originally.
  Again, if "single source generics" are even a problem then it's a lack of Sherman Anti-Trust act enforcement. Again, we know monopolies are bad. We have ancient laws against them. We just have too many blithering Ayn Rand cultists running round screeching about how corporations should act like the scum of the Earth.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:Capitalism at work by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-25 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  This guy probably is a hardcode Ayn Rand libertarian type. The fact he scooped up an FDA one-shot monopoly license makes him nothing but a Randian 'parasite' - like most Randroids. Like that fuck head Paul Ryan. Spent his life on the public tit, received welfare to help his family out, but now wants to implement the 'fuck you, got mine' philosophy.
5. Re:Capitalism at work by BradleyUffner · 2015-10-25 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Really. This is a (rare) sighting of Capitalism doing good. There is an inefficiency (high price), and somebody comes in to fill in the void to make money.
  (I hope there are no ulterior motives, though).
  Sure, it worked EVENTUALLY. Fuck those people who didn't get their medication for several months when they couldn't afford it.
6. Re: Capitalism at work by Aighearach · 2015-10-25 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't something they did R&D for, it is a standard known thing that nobody else was still making because there wasn't reason to compete on the cheap stuff with relatively few customers.
  That is why another company can just make it for $1. They could make it for a few cents, but it won't sell as many bottles as ibuprofen. And it takes up a factory line to be making it. If they're only going to need to be making it a couple days per month, then it costs a lot more per bottle because of setup.
7. Re: Capitalism at work by silas_moeckel · 2015-10-25 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  You're assuming no other regulation that patent, It's rather expensive to bring a new generic online. The FDA is slow to do the paperwork their are increased costs etc etc etc. It's so bad that a basic drug like tetracycline the only generic was made by the brand name for a while and the price went from pennies to dollars per pill overnight. The 2012 Generic Drug User Fee Amendments was supposed to make generics come online faster but has ended up shrinking the number of providers and the price hikes to go with them.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
8. Re: Capitalism at work by hankwang · 2015-10-25 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  "I realize not every pill has the same manufacturing cost, but they are at least within an order of magnutude of each other for the most part."For some value of "most". Ibuprofen is a small molecule, separating stereoisomers is not necessary, and it has a huge economy of scale. Granted, daraprin doesn't look too difficult either (http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/mobileart-rx.asp?drug=daraprim&monotype=rx-desc&monopage=1 ).
  But not all pharma compounds are like that. For example, taxol as an extreme counter example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... .
  
  --
  Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
9. Re:Capitalism at work by KermodeBear · 2015-10-25 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have a lot of time to spare right now, so I'll get right to the point:
  There is a huge difference between moral capitalism (what product/service can I provide to make someone's life better/more convenient) and amoral capitalism (how much money can I make and damn anyone else).
  Countries do not fall because of their economic policy (there are excellent arguments for each system). They fall because of a lack of principles and morality. What we are seeing in America now (and for several decades) is a huge swing towards amoral capitalism.
  This is why Bernie Sanders, for example, is resonating so well for a certain segment of the population. His argument isn't a scholarly exercise. He's playing the "good vs evil" angle. He's turning it into a moral argument, saying (erroneously) that capitalism is inherently evil and Big Government will fix it all.
  You can have amoral crony capitalism. You can have amoral crony socialism. The constant, and the problem, is the "amoral" and "crony" parts.
  
  --
  Love sees no species.
10. Re:Capitalism at work by micahraleigh · 2015-10-26 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you're saying:
  
  During that time period someone should have been willing to work at below market prices to make that stuff.
  
  Is that something you would sign up for?
  
  Mao's solution was just to give a little nudge from the government to encourage people to take this on (where a "little nudge" means millions of dead bodies).
Re:I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a pro by Xenx · 2015-10-25 05:19 · Score: 1

Are you trying to say Chevy trucks aren't able to go to Colorado?
No political advantage = not news by Kohath · 2015-10-25 05:42 · Score: 1

How are we going to exploit this to divide people and get them to hate each other? And if problems get solved without government, how can we sell the idea that only government can solve problems?
4 - 5 cent pill ... now "only $1" by harvey+the+nerd · 2015-10-25 05:47 · Score: 4, Informative

The two drug combo tablet, Pyrimethamine 25mg + Sulfadoxine 500mg, has many generic suppliers in India, for under 4 cents a tablet, with a lot more sulfa drug added in. The aseptic pilling and blister packaging probably cost more than the pyrimethamine at 1 cent.

$13.50 per tablet of 25 mg pyrimethamine was a joke and an utter ripoff. The $750 makes the French Revolution more understandable when they started shortening corrupt financiers and government royalists after a short trial...Sort of a closer shave with that super sized Gillete thing.
Re:I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a pro by Frnknstn · 2015-10-25 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny

No he's not, LEARN TO READ ffs.

When Chevy says that they're truck
He's saying that you shouldn't believe someone who says they are a truck. They are LYING to you, they are actually just a person in a truck outfit.

--
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
I don't get it by Deadstick · 2015-10-25 06:01 · Score: 1

OK, Shkreli "bought the rights" to Diaprim and raised the price...now Imprimis starts making a generic for it. So what the hell did Shkreli actually buy? It sounds as if he didn't get any kind of exclusive rights for his money. Did he just get the rights to the name? Is he just banking on doctors refusing to check "Generic OK" on the prescription form?
1. Re:I don't get it by Kierthos · 2015-10-25 06:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He got the U.S. marketing rights to that formulation. To the best of my knowledge, before Imprimis started making their DIFFERENT formulation, there wasn't a generic.
  The plan (or part of it) was that anyone who needed the drug in the U.S. would only be able to get it through specific vendors who got it from Shkreli's company. There were significant barriers in place to keep companies who might make generics of the same formulation from getting enough of that formulation to reverse engineer it.
  However, the particular active ingredient can be used in other formulations which aren't covered by the rights that Shkreli's company has. Specifically, there is a loophole that allows Imprimis to do what it just did - make a different formulation.
  Now, they (Imprimis) can still only make this stuff on request. They can't mass produce the drug, supply it to pharmacies and thereby fully extend the giant middle finger to Shkreli. However, they are able to produce it on a "per request" basis for individual customers.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
2. Re:I don't get it by mrlibertarian · 2015-10-25 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Shkreli bought the only FDA-approved treatment for toxoplasmosis. There are many cheaper versions of the drug around the world, but they are not FDA-approved. As this article explains, the FDA currently has a backlog of about 4,000 applications, and the median approval time for new generic drugs is 27 months. Thankfully, in this case, Imprimis was able to do an end run around the FDA's incompetence by making a compounded drug with the same ingredients as daraprim.
  What is needed here is some more competition; not in the drug manufacturing business, but in the drug review business. In other words, why aren't entrepreneurs allowed to compete with the FDA? Perhaps the free market could even find a way to review generic drugs in less than 27 months. What if some private reviewer does a poor job? Well, consumers can decide if they are willing to trust drug reviewer A or drug reviewer B, just as consumers currently decide if they trust the reviews in Consumer Reports.
  Or we could go with price controls. It seems to be working for Venezuela. Sure, there are constant shortages, but, hey, prices are always low!
3. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-25 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Shkreli's move to buy and hike the price of Daraprim isn't geared towards making it unaffordable to patients, but to cash in on the drug coverages now imposed by the Affordable Care Act. I've personally witnessed this happening in the medical field. A few decades back when Medicare began to impose price schedules on medical procedures, (most) everyone rushed to jack up their fees for services so that they got locked in. Medicare would then settle for some percentage of the provider's fee schedule. Now, I'm over-simplifying this, of course, but whenever you get a financing mechanism in place (like health, dental and drug insurance coverage), rates will inevitably rise to levels that the insurers are willing to pay out for. This guy saw an opportunity to buy a drug that had barriers to market entry (FDA here) such that the insurers would be forced to pay his rates whenever Daraprim is prescribed. Even at some settlement fee rate, he'd still be raking in way above $13 a pill most likely. It will be interesting to see if prescribing patterns shift enough to trip him up, but he'll likely still come out ahead in the long run.
4. Re:I don't get it by gweihir · 2015-10-25 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  He bought the FDA approval for a specific manufacturing process given in the past. The company that now steps in found a loophole, managed to acquire an older approval for a different process or managed to get approval for their way of making it.
  The problem here is really that the FDA does not give generic approvals to generica. That allows this type of evil fuckery in the first place. But what can you expect from a bureaucracy...
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
5. Re:I don't get it by mrlibertarian · 2015-10-25 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  If a drug maker, who produces drugs that are widely available and considered safe in other developed countries, can not export those drugs to this country, then I consider that to be incompetence on the FDA's part. It is okay to say, "I don't have enough funding to personally review this drug facility, so therefore I had to trust a foreign agency's approval process"; it is NOT okay to say, "I don't have enough funding to personally review this drug facility, so therefore it is BANNED."
  But anyway, who is to say what constitutes "sufficient funding"? Instead of having a centrally planned monopoly and trying to determine a "sufficient" budget, I would much rather have competing companies that have to raise funds by convincing skeptical investors, and then have to generate profits by pleasing their customers.
6. Re:I don't get it by Aighearach · 2015-10-25 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Compounding drugs isn't a loophole, it is a traditional medical service. They didn't have some right to a monopoly, so there is no "loophole." It is just such a simple drug that it turns out somebody else can offer it after all.
  This isn't a patent situation, where there is supposed to be a monopoly. They thought they had one, but it wasn't natural and so it won't persist. No loophole, just poor understanding of their product and market by executives.
7. Re:I don't get it by mister_playboy · 2015-10-25 11:53 · Score: 2
  
  Instead of having a centrally planned monopoly and trying to determine a "sufficient" budget, I would much rather have competing companies that have to raise funds by convincing skeptical investors, and then have to generate profits by pleasing their customers.
  How does that differ from the pre-FDA situation? It would seem problems with that model is exactly why the FDA was created in the first place.
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
8. Re:I don't get it by mrlibertarian · 2015-10-25 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  How does that differ from the pre-FDA situation? It would seem problems with that model is exactly why the FDA was created in the first place.
  There have been plenty of withdrawn drugs and foodborne illness outbreaks under the reign of the FDA. If these are the types of "problems" that prove that the free market model does not work, then surely these problems also prove that the FDA model does not work?
  The fact is, we don't know exactly what form the market would take if we allowed competition in the food and drug review business. For all we know, competition in that space may result in fewer withdrawn drugs and foodborne illness outbreaks. What we know for sure is that consumers will ultimately vote with their wallets. If the FDA's way of doing business is clearly superior, then it follows that consumers will only use FDA-approved products.
9. Re:I don't get it by mrlibertarian · 2015-10-25 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Those rating agencies have been given a special position by the government. For example, as this article mentions, the Fed will only accept assets as collateral if they carry high ratings from S&P, Moody's and Fitch. Even an SEC Commissioner admits that the credit rating agencies have acted like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other companies that dominate the market because of government actions.
  In a free market, poor credit rating agencies would go away, because if they lose the trust of investors, there is no longer any reason for companies to use those credit rating agencies. The reason that the big three know they have nothing to worry about is because they know the SEC and the Fed will continue to grant them special status.
10. Re:I don't get it by gweihir · 2015-10-26 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Good. So this type of evil is actually not going to become widespread.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Arwe they going to lose money ? by aepervius · 2015-10-25 07:06 · Score: 1

The compound is basic organic chemistry. OK it is not that what you get in your kitchen, but they should be able to fabricate it for far less than the 1$ per pill (baring extremely exoctic and costly catalyzed reaction) most of it will be excipient anyway by weight. Packaging and advertising will be the highest cost. Packaging they will probably make it as cheap as possible, and advertising they got all that for free. So They may not earn a lot, but like all other which fabricate generics, they will not lose on price per pill. But they won't get ultra rich on it either.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re:I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a pro by Bartles · 2015-10-25 08:26 · Score: 1

They don't gouge the sick. No sick person can pay those costs. They gouge the insurance companies, who now get your money at gunpoint. Anyone who expects prices and costs to go down under those circumstances is nuts.
No, generics _do_ need to undergo testing by dlenmn · 2015-10-25 09:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Part of the problem here is that the FDA requires generics do need to undergo testing similar to the original product (instead of merely proving that the ingredients in the generic are the same as in the original product), which can take years and millions of dollars. These FDA requirements make generics expensive to produce -- meaning that generic versions of many drugs do not exist. Without the FDA requirements, the market would take care of ridiculous price bumps by bringing in competitors.
Now, I just claimed that the FDA makes it hard to bring generics to the market, so how did a competitor spring up so quickly in this case? The answer is that the new manufacture seriously bent FDA rules: the product mentioned in the description is _not_ FDA approved. The company making the product is not a standard drug manufacturer; it is a "compounding pharmacy" -- meaning that it can skirt FDA rules by making batches of drugs for one individual at a time (not making huge batches and selling them to Wallgreen's, CVS, etc.) Since this drug is not widely used, this approach may work. However, the FDA regulations are still a burden in general (and the FDA still has some power to put the kibosh on compounding pharmacy).
See http://marginalrevolution.com/... for more information
1. Re:No, generics _do_ need to undergo testing by blind+biker · 2015-10-25 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  And this, ladies and gents, is the most informative post of the whole story. Thank you good sir.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Also more rainbows and unicorns would be awesome. by Brannon · 2015-10-25 09:12 · Score: 1

any other requests?
That's silly, capitalism has done LOTS of good. by Brannon · 2015-10-25 09:23 · Score: 1

Capitalism is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the technical and medical advances that exist in the world. The alternative to capitalism is that there is no reward for innovation, and thus no innovation.
Re:Clearly not illegal.... by guruevi · 2015-10-25 12:57 · Score: 2

The thing is, there are no rights on the drug, the patent expired, there just aren't any other makers for it because the market is so small. You can make this drug at home with a relatively basic chem set, you can get it from the UK or Canada, the only people paying the multi-thousand dollar fee are the insurance companies.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Where does the public funding come from? by Brannon · 2015-10-25 15:56 · Score: 1

the sky? How did those countries get to be wealthy?
So, when allowed to function by eric_harris_76 · 2015-10-26 14:46 · Score: 1

The market works. When permitted to. What a surprise. (To some.)
For those that think "gouging" is awful, I recommend the EconTalk podcast on the subject. http://www.econtalk.org/archiv...

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.