Slashdot Mirror


US Patients Battle EpiPen Prices And Regulations By Shopping Online (cnn.com)

"The incredible increase in the cost of EpiPens, auto-injectors that can stop life-threatening emergencies caused by allergic reactions, has hit home on Capitol Hill," reports CNN. Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar reports that the argument "has now turned into civil war in the US Senate": One senator's daughter relies on Epi-Pen, while another senator's daughter is CEO of Mylan, the single company that is licensed to sell these injectors in the US. On the worldwide market there is no monopoly on these devices... Is it finally time to allow Americans to go online and fill their prescriptions on the world market?
Time reports some patients are ordering cheaper EpiPens from Canada and other countries online, "an act that the FDA says is technically illegal and potentially dangerous." But the FDA also has "a backlog of about 4,000 generic drugs" awaiting FDA approval, reports PRI, noting that in the meantime prices have also increased for drugs treating cancer, hepatitis C, and high cholesterol. In Australia, where the drug costs just $38, one news outlet reports that the U.S. "is the only developed nation on Earth which allows pharmaceutical companies to set their own prices."

11 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Just wait for the jail / prsion bill for the durgs by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just wait for the jail / prison bill for the drugs + the cost of locking people up. as some people may trun to local jail as there last resort. also their doctors do more then the ER.

  2. Asthma Inhalers did a Similar Money Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is similar to the price hike for asthma inhalers.
    The excuse was to eliminate CFCs and save the ozone layer.
    There is not even an attempt at government control.

  3. Re:Epinephrine cost per dose in about 50 cents by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The biggest problem is that Medicare the largest insurer in the country is bared from both negotiating prices with Drug manufacturers as well as weighing its cost when considering approval of medication

  4. Re:LMGTFY by Knetzar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good catch.

    From the article: One Democratic senator whose daughter has allergies has called for action and another Democratic senator's daughter is CEO of the company responsible for the price hike.

  5. Re: Logic Says It Should Be Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When my wife was on a particular medication, we used CanadaDrugs dot com to get it vastly cheaper than we could through any USA based pharmacy. The funny thing was, the drug was made in the USA and shipped from a USA warehouse.

    The medication was never outside the US borders at all -- but the only way to get a good price was to order it via an international pharmacy.

  6. Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't, by any definition whatsoever, a free market. This is in fact a government granted monopoly. You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases. That said, I don't quite understand why we give i.e. patent holders, copyright holders, etc free reign on how, when, where, and how much they can charge for anything with the sky being the limit.

    Since there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the real issue here, the EpiPen problem (1) has nothing to do with drug patents, and (2) has relatively little to do with patent protection in general.

    Just to be clear, the drug here (epinephrine) has been around for many decades and is patent-free. You can easily get a dose of it for a few cents: hospitals directly inject the generic all the time. And the EpiPen is basically out of patent protection. There apparently is still an active patent for some aspect of the device, but the manufacturer settled a lawsuit already that would allow generic manufacture.

    So what's the real problem here? There are two. The first is the FDA. Epipens fall under the category of both "drugs" and "medical devices" for approval purposes, and the byzantine set of processes necessary for approval take forever. They also require standards for effectiveness that are probably impossible to meet in this case, because of the high rate of EpiPen (and generic autoinjector) user error. There were supposedly 26 incidents of "incorrect dosage" from Auvi-Q before the recall, but none were actually confirmed and the devices involved did not seem to be malfunctioning. So why the wrong dose?

    This is the dirty secret of this whole autoinjector business -- people actually screw up using them quite a bit. (The second issue.) The most common user errors: (1) forget to take safety cap off, (2) use wrong end, (3) don't inject for adequate time (usually recommended for 10 seconds). You introduce a slightly different procedure (with another cap, oh gosh!) and that makes alternatives like Adrenaclick even more likely to be misused.

    This whole discussion in the media, to my mind, has been highjacked by people who want to draw attention to the high prices of drugs in the U.S. And that's a very noble goal, because it is ridiculous.

    But in this particular case, there is a simple, viable, CHEAP alternative -- a syringe with epinephrine. The primary objections are that people could draw up the wrong dose in a panic or whatever -- but this is solved simply. Have your syringe prefilled by a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist. You'll also hear misinformed doctors saying, "But it isn't guaranteed to be sterile" or "it will degrade." Again, we have research on this issue -- see here and here. Basically, as long as the syringe is stored in darkness (e.g., in a simple tube or something), it's sterile and stable for at least 3 months.

    And guess what -- you don't have any of those annoying problems with people screwing up using their autoinjectors. (1) forgot to take safety cap off? Nope -- you actually see the drug go in, so if there's some sort of safety put on the needle to prevent accidental discharge, it'll be clear if you didn't take it off. (2) Used the wrong end? Nope -- even a 4-year-old knows which end of the syringe has to go in. (3) Don't inject long enough? Nope -- again, you see the stuff go in. You push the needle until the pre-measured dose is completely out.

    Giving yourself or someone else an injection is not rocket science, and with pre-filled syringes it's probably less error-prone than "autoinjectors." And here's the best part: the total cost is probably about $5 for one (including the syringe and the pre-filling to correct dose). If you were willing to buy syringes and a larger bottle of epinephrine yourself, you could make it even cheaper, but we're already down to $20/year with replacements every

  7. There's plenty of demand by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the right wing in our nation spent billions wining local elections so they could take the state senates and then gerrymandered their way into the national house & senate. Progressives won the popular vote in the last 3 elections but still lost because of this. If nothing else that's why I want Hilary. She's likely to stack the Supreme court with left leaning candidates that'll shut gerrymandering down. Trump/Pence will do the opposite. Imagine a court with 3 Clarence Thomases on it...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:IP law has nothing to do with logic. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, libertard (please take that in fun, as it was intended) your real problem in this world isn't actually the FDA, it's the insurance industry. The FDA may be able to shut down businesses which don't comply, but, by and large, they let an awful lot of stuff get through. It's the insurers who are deciding what actually gets used in our medical system - drugs, devices and procedures they are willing to pay for are widely used, those they do not are relegated to a tiny fraction of the market. FDA doesn't actually "approve" anything, they give "permission to market." It's insurers that "approve reimbursement," and insurers who have built up a system so corrupt that when it is studied in history, people will not believe the ratios between private pay price and insured reimbursement. It simply won't make sense that a society that supposedly had a free and open competitive market, with laws against monopolistic behavior, could ever allow billing $15 for a 500mg Tylenol pill, or $15,000 for a device with 30 year old technology inside that costs $500 to make.

    The only other time I ever encountered "prices" that were so crazy was in former East Germany, just after the wall fell 1990: Bread: $0.05 per pound, nice 3 bedroom flat in town: $12 per month, bicycle (luxury item) $15,000, color TV $45,000. It turns money into a sick joke. Just like in the USA today, when you get really sick, the money involved is beyond crazy, all you can do is laugh and shake your head, oh, and pay the man if you want a chance to live.

  9. Re:IP law has nothing to do with logic. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, the FDA's power to keep products off the market is the problem. The health insurance industry only has the power it enjoys now because it's the patient's only bulk bargaining agent in the current monopoly environment. Except for major medical like heart problems and cancer, the industry isn't even functioning as true insurance - it's just a prepayment system with bargaining power.

    The real price of any medical procedure, device or compound is the contract price the insurance company pays for it. Unless you're on Medicare and get a regular EOB statement of payments, patients never even know what this contract price is. As an example, my wife's kidney dialysis sessions are billed out at $3,925 each, for a total of about $600,000 per year. The insurance company's "real price" is $290 per session.

    If we had a competitive market in medicine the importance of insurance companies would diminish. Health insurance would go back to being the "major medical" it once was, indemnifying us against hospital stays and catastrophic diseases. The governments and charities which pay for medical services now would save correspondingly, which alone is why competition will be forced on the industry as prices become intolerable.

  10. Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Many on the left

    You lost all legitimacy the second those words spewed from your neurally neocortex-disjointed fingertips.

    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

    Christ, I need to go clean the dripping irony off of my computer screen.

  11. Re:Free market by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Interesting
    You make it sound like i ever used the words "democrat" or "republican" in my post. I note how every political post becomes ana rgument over words. Any argument on facts becomes a "no true Scotsman" or strawman. And nobody ever actually discusses the issue, just how it's discussed.

    but to cast it as 'the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.' when it's more the opposite is quite a stretch there...

    I'm just looking at the work Reagan did to punish gays. He tightened enforcement of US-made drugs being re-imported to a level never before seen (to keep the "God hates fags" christian conservatives happy), and (Arguably) not seen since. Clinton kept the status quo of bans on re-imports, but there was no presidential pressure to prosecute, and so the Canadian mail-order drugs came back. At least until Bush II. Or do you recall the presidencies differently?