Slashdot Mirror


Hackers Offer a DIY Alternative To The $600 EpiPen (ieee.org)

After the pharmaceutical company Mylan raised the price of a 2-pen set of EpiPens by nearly $500 over the course of 9 years, Michael Laufer and his "pharma-hacking confederates at the Four Thieves Vinegar Collective," decided to make their own budget-friendly EpiPens. IEEE Spectrum reports: Today they released a video and instructions showing DIYers how to make a generic EpiPen using materials that can be bought online for about $30. They call it the EpiPencil. "It functions just as well as an EpiPen," Laufer says in the video, after demonstrating the assembly and showing that it works. "With no special training, anybody can use it." An EpiPen is just a spring-loaded syringe filled with the pharmaceutical epinephrine. Laufer's video shows how to assemble the "open source medical device" and provides links for where to buy the components online. He stops short of telling viewers how to get their hands on the drug, noting that you need a prescription for it. But Laufer tells IEEE Spectrum in an interview that it's easy to buy epinephrine online from a chemical supplier, and he hopes viewers will do just that. "There's a small but hopefully growing subculture of people who are buying the active ingredients of drugs," he says. "It's encouraging to see people take control of their own health."

35 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by DatbeDank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue here isn't the materials cost of the epipen. You don't even need an epipen to deliver the medicine, just a syringe and an epinephrine vial. Any school nurse worth her salt will know how to use a needle. If school districts wanted to give a fat middle finger to the pharma industry on this they could go and purchase them.

    The issue here is that Mylan (the makers of the pen) lobbied the FDA and government to require its purchase be done by school districts and then jacking the price up to gouge the taxpayer (ie you and me). Now school districts have to purchase the pen instead of going the route I outlined above.

    The only way to hack the regulatory process is to donate a retarded sum of money to "charity" of a specific presidential candidate and various other lobbying groups. Though that isn't really hacking. Just, "business as usual" in the fairy tale land known around that stretch of highway known as the beltway.

    1. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's an additional constraint, which is that the autoinjector is intended to be used by untrained people. It has to be, literally, idiot proof. The reason the competing producer got pulled from the market is failure of idiot-proofness - that it would sometimes deliver the wrong dose.

      Proving that your device is idiot proof is expensive, putting a high barrier to entry of new market participants. The liability cost of failing idiot-proofness is outrageous. The result is, even with a 95% profit margin, no commercial entity (in the US) wants to start up and compete with the entrenched monopoly on price. Seems rational to me.

      The DIY publishers have done a nice job of demonstrating the regulatory walls that protect the US pharmaceutical industry, but the first time someone tries to use an epi-pencil and delivers a wrong dose, gets a venous injection, or an infection, they're going to be targets of civil lawsuits from whomever managed to build or use the device wrong. We need reform of the laws that facilitate monopoly-like entrenchment and reform of the culture that looks at misfortune as a lottery ticket.

    2. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need reform of the laws that facilitate monopoly-like entrenchment and reform of the culture that looks at misfortune as a lottery ticket.

      I don't think any amount of regulation will help with this, because it comes down to greed. If it weren't for the monopoly, they would just collude with the other manufacturers to keep prices high. Greed will find a way.

      What we need is mandatory price regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. Will there be less R&D? Possibly, but the majority of new drugs produced now are just new formulations of old compounds that are no longer covered by patents.

    3. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      the autoinjector is intended to be used by untrained people.

      The "training" in this case takes literally 5 minutes if you are a slow reader. I refuse to have that used as an excuse for a $600 (or even a $50) "auto-injector". Blah blah blah you're not qualified to say this what are you a doctor? Yes. Yes I am a medical doctor.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Proving that your device is idiot proof is expensive, putting a high barrier to entry of new market participants. The liability cost of failing idiot-proofness is outrageous. The result is, even with a 95% profit margin, no commercial entity (in the US) wants to start up and compete with the entrenched monopoly on price. Seems rational to me.

      Let's try and understand this "barrier" to entry a bit more, in financial terms that would attract a few more investors than your 95% number.

      The cost of the materials is around $30, according to information here. Charging merely double for the product would be a 100% markup. Charging what they currently charge ($600+) represents a 2000% markup. Those kinds of numbers are enough to justify mining precious metals out of the earth, so I fail to see how someone would fail to reverse-engineer what is essentially a spring-loaded syringe in order to deliver an "idiot-proof" product (which kind of starts with putting an "idiot-proof" amount of epinephrine in the device.)

      Yes, due to all of the regulatory bullshit involved, there is likely some cost to entry. But with a markup and profit margin like that, even coming in to charge half what the current monopoly charges would net you a tidy profit, along with the added benefit of almost instantly capturing the majority of the market and helping save lives. The sad reality of today is those who need this device NEED it, so demand will always be present, and right now people are likely dying only due to the monopoly charging an obscene amount of money for a critical medical device.

    5. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      bullshit.

      The epi pen design has NOT CHANGED in 20 years. sorry but they dont deserve to "make up the development costs" 20 years later for a product they did not even design but instead bought.

      come on back when you actually know about thew product being talked about.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Repurposed insulin pen- one-time cost of $100, should last a lifetime. Epinephrine - dirt cheap. Disposable pen-tips - less than 2 for a buck. Used insulin cartridges - free.

      I don't see why people haven't been taking insulin pens that take cartridges, emptying the cartridge, and filling it with epinephrine. Simple, cheap, easy to use, and you just replace the epinephrine every 6 months to a year, which is a couple of bucks. The pens last pretty much forever with 3-4x daily use, so one pen should last a lifetime. Using the longest pen tip needle will mean being able to hit the muscle instead of subcutaneous injection, unless you're more than a little obese.

      Advantages: Device already approved for injecting drugs. Dial a dose (more accurate than a syringe), stick it in you, push the button with your thumb.. Easily replaceable needle. Available over-the-counter at most pharmacies.

      The cartridges you can get free almost empty from anyone who uses them (they were goig to dispose of them at that point anyway), you can use a syringe to inject air into the narrow end of the cartridge until the rubber stopper pops out, rinse VERY well (don't want any traces of insulin), add the epinephrine, stick the rubber stopper back in, you're all set for the next year (no, epinephrine doesn't "go bad" after 6 months. Studies show that at that point it's still at 90% potency or better. Just look for a color change).

      The pen is under $100, the cartridges are free, the pentip needles are less than half a buck apiece so if you ask someone with type 1 diabetes they'll probably just give you one, along with the near-empty cartridge they were going to toss, so once you buy the pen, your annual cost will be what - $5.00?

      As for ease of use, kids already use them.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re: Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by Custard+Horse · · Score: 2

      He said idiot proof, not cunt-proof.

      Apologies for the course language but it was something my father used to say. Always made me laugh.

    8. Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      the autoinjector is intended to be used by untrained people.

      The "training" in this case takes literally 5 minutes if you are a slow reader. I refuse to have that used as an excuse for a $600 (or even a $50) "auto-injector". Blah blah blah you're not qualified to say this what are you a doctor? Yes. Yes I am a medical doctor.

      First, thank you for saying this.

      Second, the EpiPen is NOT "idiot-proof"! Studies have shown that only about 16% of patients use epinephrine autoinjectors correctly. (Here's the original 2015 study.)

      Yes, this study only tracked 102 patients with epinephrine, but it's a large enough group to see the problem. (Also, other earlier studies are cited in the one above showing correct use to be around 22%.) The most common error was failing to hold the device on the thigh for at least 10 seconds (required to guarantee full dose). Many people just stab and release after a second or two, which generally results in a much smaller dose than needed or expected. (I wonder whether this has anything to do with the current recommendation for carrying two EpiPens -- they've only been sold in pairs for the past five years or so. Is it because that many people require two doses? Or because many people fail to administer the first dose correctly?)

      And of the 84% who had errors, 56% had errors in three or more steps. Other common errors: using the wrong end, failure to depress the device forcefully enough to activate the injector, and even forgetting to remove the safety cap (about 1/3 of the time).

      Also, note that all the people in this study were people who had actually been prescribed epinephrine or parents of minor children who had the device. So these weren't exactly completely ignorant people or random bystanders who might be expected to use a device... they were people actually aware of and prescribed the EpiPen.

      But instead, have a pre-filled syringe with a correct dose from a nurse or a pharmacist. You have tactile and visual confirmation that the drug goes in correctly and completely. Even a small child knows which end of the needle goes in; everyone has had a "shot" and has seen the doctor draw up the needle and inject. And you clearly see and feel how much of the dose is going through the syringe.

      I'd like to see actual data showing how many "untrained people" would misuse a pre-filled syringe vs. misuse an EpiPen. I think many people would be surprised.

  2. Just an onion on my belt! by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There's a small but hopefully growing subculture of people who are buying the active ingredients of drugs," he says. "It's encouraging to see people take control of their own health."

    There used to be a time when you could walk to your corner pharmacy and get a bottle of laudanum, or some cocaine. This did not work out well. There are far too many stupid or murderous people to allow this. I'm sure these guys have the best of intentions but when the idiots start rolling up with lawsuits because they didn't assemble their pen correctly or overdosed or used old medicine or got an air bubble into their veins or the cheap needle they used broke off into their leg or any of the infinite number of horrible things that will happen, they will be wiped out.

    There are very good reasons we don't allow Doctor Mom to build her own x-ray machine to save a buck. Just because this medical device is simple doesn't mean it isn't a medical grade device that should be constructed in your Maker lab.

  3. School nurses by sjbe · · Score: 2

    You don't even need an epipen to deliver the medicine, just a syringe and an epinephrine vial. Any school nurse worth her salt will know how to use a needle.

    I coach school sports teams so I've been on staff at a number of schools. Most school nurses I've ever met are prohibited from administering any injectable medications and I've met more than a few who were not trained nurses at all. School nurses are not on the school grounds at all times either, particularly after school hours. Schools are certainly not about to start storing syringes and vials of medications. The whole point of something like an epipen is that it can be administered by someone with no medical training whatsoever because there is a very high chance that whoever administers the epipen will not be a trained medical professional.

    The issue here is that Mylan (the makers of the pen) lobbied the FDA and government to require its purchase be done by school districts and then jacking the price up to gouge the taxpayer (ie you and me). Now school districts have to purchase the pen instead of going the route I outlined above.

    That's a minor part of this problem. Most buyers of epipens are not schools but individuals. School districts might be getting ripped off but that's small potatoes compared with individuals getting ripped off.

  4. Re:Minimum education to administer a shot? by eyenot · · Score: 2

    Apparently in a lab study epipens that were used 2-3 years past date still contained 90% of epinephrine; 5-7 years had 70%.

    https://www.verywell.com/expir...

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  5. Single payer system would avoid this problem by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think any amount of regulation will help with this, because it comes down to greed.

    Untrue. In most countries the government is in charge of health care and they have a VERY easy way to regulate price gouging such as this. In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".

    What we need is mandatory price regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. Will there be less R&D?

    The only way to do that is to go to a single payer health care system. Has worked well for a lot of countries so it's not a bad idea.

    Possibly, but the majority of new drugs produced now are just new formulations of old compounds that are no longer covered by patents.

    That is easily disproven. Yes there are some shenanigans like what you describe but it does not constitute the "majority of new drugs".

    1. Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      works fine everywhere else.
      the us isn't such a special snowflake that it cant work here too.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem by hey! · · Score: 2

      Technically what you are describing isn't socialized medicine; it's socialized health insurance.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem by gordguide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most of the western European countries regulate the price of health care. Most of them are NOT single payer. The two do not go hand in hand.

      I'm personally a fan of the Swedish model, with minimal national regulation and all the money and implementation details are handled by the provinces. We should pass an amendment forcing the states to provide a certain level of health services. Everyone in the U.S. seems to be fixated on coming to a federal solution as quickly as possible, putting all of our eggs into one basket and ignoring the half of the population that disagrees with them.



      You just described the Canadian Health Care system.
      Federal Government requires that, in order for a Province to receive funding equal to about 10% of i's Health Care costs, it adheres to the one criteria which can be summed as:

      All Health Care is provided by the Provinces, and they set the terms and scope of that care. No two Provinces in Canada have the same Health Care system.

      In order to get a payment from the Federal Government, a Province must comply with the Canada Health Act, which basically says:

      A Health Care provider must be either all-in or all-out when it comes to accepting Medicare patients. That is, you can accept patients and bill the Province, or you can accept patients and bill the Patient (or his/her insurer) but you cannot accept some of each. In or Out (and there are many Private doctors, clinics, and even entire hospitals in Canada. They are not prohibited).

      A Province is free, of course, to forego the Federal Government's cheque and ignore the above, or have no Health Care at all, or comply with the CHA and offer anything at all in terms of what is covered. As it is now, no Province has opted out.

      The Federal payment is equal to about 10% of a Province's Health Care costs.
    4. Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Informative

      The U.S. federal government makes it illegal to import, or even RE-import prescription drugs. That's right. Thanks to government, you can't even buy the same exact product in the manufacturer's original packaging after it has been exported.

      Then, you have Medicare and Medicaid which dictate prices for products and services. The medical service providers then jack up prices on everyone else to offset the below-market prices from the government programs. That's why people go bankrupt due to medical bills. The uninsured have no negotiating power, and get charged 10x, 50x or more for the same exact services. If everyone paid the Medicare/Medicaid prices, providers would go bankrupt. If Medicare/Medicaid paid fair market prices, those programs would go bankrupt.
      The USA federal government has been involved in healthcare for over 50 years. Their intervention has been an absolute disaster. Skyrocketing prices, millions unable to afford even basic services, substandard quality of outcomes.

      And these are the people you want to put in charge of the entire USA healthcare system? Fuck "socialized medicine" and fuck the U.S. federal government. They're the problem, not the solution.

    5. Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem by Jahta · · Score: 2

      I don't think any amount of regulation will help with this, because it comes down to greed.

      Untrue. In most countries the government is in charge of health care and they have a VERY easy way to regulate price gouging such as this. In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".

      If there was a score above 5 on /. then your comment should get it. America has the most expensive medical system on the planet. I've had first-hand experience of a family member falling ill on a US holiday and the insurance company chartered a plane to fly them home because it cost less than paying US hospital bills. And the sad part is that the medical outcomes are no better in the US than they are in Europe where we have national public health systems ("socialized medicine" as you neatly put it).

      As you say, public health systems negotiate at national level which gives them much more leverage with the big pharma companies. But there is also a general ethos in Europe that healthcare is not a luxury, and that patients should always come before profit.

    6. Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem by sjames · · Score: 2

      The single payer systems DO have to be reasonable about it (nobody will sell at a loss). However, the same greed that makes Mylan charge $600 instead of $100 will cause them to agree to make $500 million on the thing rather than zero.

  6. So many problems... by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So many problems with this:

    1) Dosing is a big issue. Huge. Not just determining the correct dose but mechanically and reliably administering the correct dose. This is NOT a trivial concern. Both under and overdosing with epinephrine can be a very serious matter.

    2) Quality control in a device like this is essentially nonexistent. It might work but you can virtually guarantee that it won't always work. If it doesn't then that will very likely result in serious injury or possibly death. I work in a company that makes components for medical devices. The quality control standards are VERY stringent for very good reasons.

    3) Sourcing the medication. Sure you might be able to buy it but there are VERY good reasons why we have a controlled supply chain in the pharmaceutical industry. You are seriously rolling the dice if you buy outside the normal supply chain.

    4) The person who administers the injection is quite likely to not be the person who built the device. This raises a whole host of problems.

    1. Re:So many problems... by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As sad as it seems, more than 100 million people in the USA have a BIG problem with a $500 investment:

        Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency.

      If they can't scrape up $400 for an emergency, they probably can't afford a $500 investment for an epi-pen they might not need. A visit to the ER not only introduces a time delay which puts the person's health at greater risk, and it might also mean bankruptcy.

      The risk associated with use of a $30 device is probably acceptable to people who would otherwise risk death or bankruptcy. Having options is a good thing, even if they come with risk.

  7. Re:Incoming lawsuit in 3...2... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

    First of all, the EpiPen is certainly covered by some sort of patent, so Mylan is going to sue them into the middle ages for infringing on their patents.

    Mylan does have a patent, which covers their design until 2025. However, after watching the video, I really don't see how they could sue for patent infringement.

    Basically, the video shows you how to take an auto-injector for diabetics and replace the needle of the syringe with the larger one required to deliver the epinephrine. I was actually surprised how simple it really is to make, I think most people could actually do this fairly easily. In fact, the solution is so cheap, and the only part that needs to be replaced is the needle itself, that you could afford to try dozens of times to get it right before you would come close to the cost of even one EpiPen.

    In fact, if Mylan actually tried to sue for infringement, they might open themselves up to invalidating their own patent, because it wouldn't pass the test of non-obviousness. Specifically, in the US, the criteria for determining obviousness is (source):

    1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
    2. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
    3. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
    4. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
    5. "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
    6. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
    7. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.

    I think the EpiPencil hits every one of these points. So if Mylan wants to say that the EpiPencil violates their patent on the EpiPen, then they are basically saying that the design of the EpiPen is obvious, and thus their patent is invalid. In a weird way it almost makes me hope they do sue for infringement.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  8. Government regs or tort action. Pick one. by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who will sue anyone over anything bad that happens.

    You will have either regulation through government or regulation through legal action. You cannot opt out of having one or the other. You don't get both and you don't get neither. Having neither would be a TERRIBLE idea because that's how you get quacks. Without having regulations or tort action you have no means for people to get redress when they are injured. And make no mistake that there are plenty of people who would sacrifice your life to make a few extra bucks.

  9. eh by nomadic · · Score: 2

    If you can't afford a $600 EpiPen, buy a $144 Adrenaclick. Only if you can't afford that do you go for the homebrew.

  10. Re:Better be careful, people by pz · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few small air bubbles, while not ideal, are not as bad as you might think. An important reason that you use the Hollywood-style flick-flick-flick to get air bubbles to the top of a syringe and then press them out is to make sure that you've filled the syringe with the appropriate amount of drug. Whereas 0.2 cc of air probably won't do much to you if injected (and that's a pretty big bubble in a syringe), if you're injecting 1 cc of drug, that 20% difference with versus without bubble can make a big difference in the mount of drug that actually gets delivered.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  11. Re:Lack of government is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The company that makes epipens has been given free reign to set the price however they want"

    You do realize that the line right there was made possible by government, right? There are competitors who make them and sell them for much cheaper on the international market, but the government, the one you're saying would make everything better, has banned them from being allowed to be sold in this country.

    And if you think the government has no profit motive, you're a naive fool. How do you think lobbying groups work? They just say "pretty please with a cherry on top"? No, they dump lots of money at the government to get their way.

  12. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just tell your doctor to re-write your prescription from "EpiPen" to "Automatic Epinephrine Injector". There's plenty of generic alternatives that are reasonably priced. It's just that doctors are lazy or unaware.

  13. Why competition is mandatory, not optional. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Title of my post says it all.

    The 2000% markup the current monopoly is charging for this should be a wake-up call to anyone thinking otherwise.

    And I'm talking about actual competition, not some bullshit "alliance" of like businesses colluding to create a "standard" price.

  14. Sounds great, except they don't make more money by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Greed! Monopoly! Regulation! These are fun words to say.

    The weird thing is, pharmaceutical companies don't make money consistently more than car companies, food companies, electronics companies, software companies, or any other kind of company. They simply aren't making the ton of money we'd like to complain about. This makes sense, because if drug research, development, and production DID make more money than doing something else, then Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos would invest their money into new pharmaceutical companies, so that they would make a ton more money. Those new companies would be competition for the old, tending to reduce prices.

    In fact, when you think about who has a billion dollars to invest, who makes a ton of money, the big names that make crazy money are Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos - it's the computer technology people making crazy money. *We* are the greedy bastards. :â'O

    * Like some technology companies, drug companies have bad years, when they spend $2 billion on R&D and nothing gets approved, and good years when they have a hit. Over time, their total returns are similar to other industries with similar volatility, and risk-adjusted returns are inline with the overall economy.

    1. Re:Sounds great, except they don't make more money by digibruce · · Score: 2

      Greed! Monopoly! Regulation! These are fun words to say.

      The weird thing is, pharmaceutical companies don't make money consistently more than car companies, food companies, electronics companies, software companies, or any other kind of company. They simply aren't making the ton of money we'd like to complain about. This makes sense, because if drug research, development, and production DID make more money than doing something else, then Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos would invest their money into new pharmaceutical companies, so that they would make a ton more money. Those new companies would be competition for the old, tending to reduce prices.

      In fact, when you think about who has a billion dollars to invest, who makes a ton of money, the big names that make crazy money are Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos - it's the computer technology people making crazy money. *We* are the greedy bastards. :â'O

      * Like some technology companies, drug companies have bad years, when they spend $2 billion on R&D and nothing gets approved, and good years when they have a hit. Over time, their total returns are similar to other industries with similar volatility, and risk-adjusted returns are inline with the overall economy.

      5-year quarterly profit margin average (all from ycharts):
      Oracle: 26.72% https://ycharts.com/companies/ORCL/profit_margin
      Google: 22.87% https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin
      Apple: 22.74% https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin
      Pfizer: 19.73% https://ycharts.com/companies/PFE/profit_margin
      Johnson & Johnson: 19.28% https://ycharts.com/companies/JNJ/profit_margin
      Mylan: 8.97% https://ycharts.com/companies/MYL/profit_margin
      Amazon: .36% https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/profit_margin

      Pharma average 18% http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

      So even if you cherry-pick the famous tech winners, the companies banking the most cash in tech, pharma looks pretty damn profitable. And remember, unlike tech companies, pharma companies are sitting, more and more, on old products that are patent protected or just don't have approved generics, and there is a trend of these products getting more expensive, not less.

      OK, so now that we've countered the implicit argument that tech profit margins are insanely higher than pharma margins, let's look at all the misguided wrapper logic...

      1. By this argument, Google and Apple should go into real estate, which has truly insane profit margins. But in the real world, people and businesses in one industry vertical generally do not just suddenly switch industries just because something else is more profitable. There are a few exceptions of big companies mostly pulling this off, like GE becoming primarily a financial services company, but people and organizations generally stick to what they know, and have massive institutional inertia generated primarily by middle management. Having spent over 20 years trying to get non-tech companies to act more like tech companies with minimal success, I know this from experience as well as third-party anecdote.

      2. Yes, pharma profits go up and down with R&D, market conditions, and competition. Tech profits also go up and down with R&D, market, and competition. Just look at the quarterly results of any of the tech companies you cite, and compare with any pharma company. Both are R&D plays. Pharma patents offer stronger practical protection than in tech, so it should be more stable over time, as borne out when you compare the patent-holding winners in pharma to the companies that never have a hit drug. Historically, over the last 30 years, profit margins in pharma have strengthened, not gone in neutral cycles: http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/average-profit-margin-pharmaceuticals-20671.html

      3. In the real world, the specific tech companies and people you cite are actually going big in healthcare:

      Google is hu

  15. Just inject it - Less expensive and safe by NotARealUser · · Score: 2

    People have become so risk averse in the western world that we would rather watch someone die a slow suffocating death from an allergy than actually help the person because, "only experts can do that." We have this phobia of doing anything outside of our specialization. A phobia that is largely propagated by the "experts" of various fields to ensure their own job security and their elite status. Several of the commentators on this article need to stop whimpering in the corner, worried about the new, and instead do what it takes to help those around you. Sometimes that means working on changing the laws and changing the way we do things.

    As others mentioned, the real key is that the EpiPen is fairly foolproof. However, for the cost, it seems like an extreme hurdle to cross. It is at the point where some facilities, and some families, do not keep one on hand, even when they know there are those that have severe allergies, simply because of the cost.

    I would propose that most institutions, and families with allergy sufferers, could bring a lay person to a level of understanding and skill such that they could administer an injection of epinephrine via syringe if needed. This is not rocket science. You could have classes on this administered by the Red Cross (much like some of the CPR and first aid classes). For the $50 to $100 that it would take to take the class, it would more than make up for the savings for the EpiPen, even if you had to renew yearly. Also, you could always scholarship in those that could not afford the class cost. For schools and summer camps, this would be a no brainer as I imagine the policy is that only the trained nurse administers the EpiPen anyway.

    This is one of those situations where regulations kill. Because we have private companies steering government policy to keep the competition out, and because these governments and businesses engage in a symbiotic relationship to maintain each other's power (also known as fascism), we run into extremely high costs where literally only the rich and well connected can afford to be ready for a bee sting or other reaction.

  16. Re:Government regs or tort action. Pick one. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    It's worse than that. Most of the quacks actually think they're right and that they're helping people. It's hard to do trials that really prove efficacy (or prove that something is ineffective), and people who are sick are desperate so they'll believe just about anything, and on top of all that the Placebo Effect is a real thing, so we end up with stuff like Homeopathy and Chiropractic. The vast majority of these "practitioners" IMO are not sacrificing your life to make a few extra bucks, they do it because they genuinely believe in their snake oil.

  17. Re:RATIONING by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Everywhere that has socialized medicine has to deal with health care rationing.

    All health care is rationed as it's not an infinite resource. It's just that in non-socialized settings, those with more money/ power/ influence get to go the head of the line regardless of actual need or urgency. People don't like waiting in line and many only care about "fair" when it affects them.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  18. Re:Lack of government is the problem by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Now let's figure out what we'd like to cut from Government. Defense? That's part of the constitutionally limited responsibilities (CLR). That's roughly half of discretionary spending (about $600 billion).

    Of course, not all of that is for proper "Defense". Do we actually need aircraft carriers to defend the US? No, we need them to protect our foreign interests and commitments. I imagine the Defense Budget could be trimmed quite a bit if we limited it to actual Defense.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  19. Cost in USA $600, cost in EU, $42. by Computershack · · Score: 2

    Don't need to DIY them, just need to sort out the ridiculous situation in the USA. The Epipen I have here in the UK which comes from a company called Meda cost me £8.40 on prescription. Obviously the NHS don't pay that little but a quick cursory search shows that here and in France it costs $85 for two.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams