Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

5 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Let me be the first to put this here by drinkypoo · · 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
  2. 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