Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

36 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Let me be the first to put this here by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    "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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 AmiMoJo · · 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
    6. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by lgw · · 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.
    7. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sjames · · 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.

    8. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by TheReaperD · · 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." -
    9. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by Kierthos · · 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.
    10. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sjames · · 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.

    11. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by jvkjvk · · 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.

    12. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      capitalism at work

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by ArchieBunker · · 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
    14. Re:Let me be the first to put this here by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      And how many peoples health were jeopardized while they fucked around?

  2. Shocked and amazed by hideki.adam · · 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 nanoflower · · 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.

    2. Re:Shocked and amazed by meerling · · 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.

    3. Re:Shocked and amazed by fahrbot-bot · · 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. . . .
    4. Re:Shocked and amazed by Harlequin80 · · 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.

  3. I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a profit by Alain+Williams · · 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.

  4. Call me a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · 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 roc97007 · · 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.
    2. Re:Call me a skeptic by Aristos+Mazer · · 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.

    3. Re:Call me a skeptic by Lendrick · · 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.

    4. Re:Call me a skeptic by MightyMartian · · 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.
  5. Mark Baum: HERO. by kheldan · · 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!
  6. THere's a catch by willworkforbeer · · 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..
  7. Re: Capitalism at work by v1 · · 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.
  8. 4 - 5 cent pill ... now "only $1" by harvey+the+nerd · · 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.

  9. Re:I hope that Imprimis Pharmaceuticals make a pro by Frnknstn · · 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.
  10. Re:I don't get it by Kierthos · · 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.
  11. No, generics _do_ need to undergo testing by dlenmn · · 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

  12. Re: Capitalism at work by silas_moeckel · · 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.
  13. Re:I don't get it by mister_playboy · · 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
  14. Re:Clearly not illegal.... by guruevi · · 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