Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Tried To Lower $148K Cancer Drug Cost; Makers Tripled Its Price (arstechnica.com)
Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar writes: Imbruvica, a compound that treats white blood cell cancers, has until now been a bargain at $148,000 per year. Until now, doctors have been able to optimize dosage for each patient by prescribing up to four small-dose pills of it per day.
But after results from a recent small pilot trial indicated that smaller doses would for most patients work as well as the large ones, its manufacturer, Janssen and Pharmacyclics, has decided on the basis of the doctors' interest in smaller dosages to reprice all sizes of the drug to the price of the largest size. This has the effect of tripling the price for patients, and doctors have now put off any plans for further testing of lower dosages.
The researchers are retaliating by urging clinical investigators to test whether the expensive pill could be safely given every other day -- and by calling on America's public health regulators to investigate the drug's pricing.
But after results from a recent small pilot trial indicated that smaller doses would for most patients work as well as the large ones, its manufacturer, Janssen and Pharmacyclics, has decided on the basis of the doctors' interest in smaller dosages to reprice all sizes of the drug to the price of the largest size. This has the effect of tripling the price for patients, and doctors have now put off any plans for further testing of lower dosages.
The researchers are retaliating by urging clinical investigators to test whether the expensive pill could be safely given every other day -- and by calling on America's public health regulators to investigate the drug's pricing.
Hang them
Much of what is wrong in the world is represented in this story. I get it.. recovery of R&D costs, profit, all of that. This seems to go far beyond the pale, though.
Beware of the Leopard.
Also, this is the kind of public opinion stuff politicians can make careers out of.
Only to turn around and get paid by the pharma companies after they get elected of course.
...come into effect, expect wailing, moaning and cries of "How could it have come to this?!?". Well, dumb-asses, you just HAD to grab that extra dollar just because you could, right? Payback will be a bitch if we ever wake up in this country.
Lots of folks here are allergic to the idea of the public interest having any role in public policy. I understand where you're coming from - "if it isn't helping me now..."
But here's the thing - properly funding public research is WAY cheaper than these ruthless extortion tactics we've turned healthcare into for the past few decades.
I mean, it's crazy cheaper to prioritize a working public healthcare, and yes, research programs.
As in, most of the rest of the world would consider how we run things a complete joke.
But somehow, because it involves some sort of public interest at play... it's somehow seen as a threat(?)
But somehow, these stories after stories of business people deciding to extort folks, with such calculated corporate smiles on their faces are seen as not a threat.
Which is rather odd - those same folks would see Andy Griffith as a misty memory ideal don't see how basically that's exactly the kind of cruel selfishness personified that he ranted at in half of the episodes of his show.
It's just so bizarre to see what passes for debate and morality in discussions on Slashdot these days.
Ryan Fenton
...that so many Americans identify with and defend patriotically and decry anything else as Socialism/Communism/government overreach. This is the free market and minimal regulation at work, doing what it's supposed to do, regardless of anything except profits and share prices, and you vote for it like true patriots every few years.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
I've heard that opinion expressed.
I'm assuming this is because they are trying to get back the fixed R&D cost. Maybe the solution should be an incremental cost for the medicine and the fixed cost divided by the number of users. That way the more people who sign up, the lower the cost is to all. Or maybe the government should buy out the fixed cost and let the company collect the incremental cost.
The drug Martin jacked, the patent already expired, right? So why don't other makers just sell their own low cost version?
Second, as far as I know, every pharmaceutical marketer has a drug affordability of some kind. In fact I think it might be a little known requirement under US FDA regulations. Here is the official drug affordability site for the drug: Imbruvica cost support Any one who needs this drug (or any other life saving medication really) should look into these programs.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
The pill will split in unevenly, powder will fall off, etc.
1. Kidnap a pharmaceutical company CEO.
2. Lock him up with a rabid raccoon until they become properly acquainted.
3. Offer the exec access to the anti-rabies vaccine for $30 million deposited in an untraceable numbered bank account.
4. Profit!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...are reasonable.
It always blows my mind when I see users who constantly post pro-Trump free market posts on slashdot calling for the death and hanging of someone or some organization who is doing just that!
Geez. Either you want free market or you don't! At least be consistent.
I have suspected MOST Republicans actually want socialized healthcare, they've just been bamboozled by their party to think otherwise.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Froth froth Venezuela froth froth death panels froth froth I can claim it as a business expense so I don't care.
The patients should pool what they would have paid for such drugs into a fund to lobby Congress to help their progeny. That would be a useful martyrdom, and it would get a lot of press, too.
I remember some very old people I new in the 80s were talking about how all the non-profit the hospitals were closing down and for profit hospitals were moving in. They said that prices for medical will skyrocket because if there is one thing sick people will do, is pay to live. They were hoping the government would make for profit medical services illegal. Well I guess we are there now.
and for England
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
12 years ago, I could get my colon medicine for $30 per month - it currently costs $1000 per month for the same medicine - pharma bros will end up costing me years of life, but execs/mbas are somehow able to convince the dummies that they are worth the $$$$$
Big pharmas, who profits off the back of people in needs, by increasing their prices evermore, should be charged with treason against humanity as a whole.
Here's an informative article from last year on U.S. drug patent law and the impact and implications, as well as a recommendation to alter it from 20 years from date of invention to 15 years from date of FDA approval.
https://www.upcounsel.com/how-long-do-drug-patents-last
Dear America,
Fix your fucking healthcare system.
Sincerely,
The civilised world.
Florence is overloaded they're transferring perps out to mid and low sec also it wouldn't take anyone with less than 10 y. sentence that perp got seven.
Here is the horrible action the pharmaceutical company took:
But after results from a recent small pilot trial indicated that smaller doses would for most patients work as well as the large ones, its manufacturer, Janssen and Pharmacyclics, has decided on the basis of the doctors' interest in smaller dosages to reprice all sizes of the drug to the price of the largest size. This has the effect of tripling the price for patients,
So, previously there was a pricing anomaly in that 4x smaller pills were as effective as 1x large pill, so when they repriced the drug, each of the smaller doses cost as much as the larger dosages. Why would a patient keep taking several of the smaller dosage pills after the price change? Just take the 1x larger dose pill and it costs as much as the 4x smaller pils used to.
I would expect highly specialized medicines to retail at a price based on the amount of active ingredient in the container, if it is spread over 50 large dose pills or 200 small dose pills (small is 1/4th the large dosage).
Ken
Everytime I go there and go to a pharmacy to get a prescription refill while abroad, the price charged is usually even lower than my copay in the USA. It is an obscenity against US consumers. We should really be in the streets with pitch forks about this but we are not. The fact that most drugs are covered and only copay is needed obfuscates the real retail prices that would cripple anyone without insurance. I was shocked about the prices in europe. Most americans would not even need prescription coverage for most of those drugs as their street price is ridiculously low compared to what we pay in the USA
His candor doesn't make the foulness of his predatory actions ok.
His abuses of abusive laws are not ok. An "et tu" defense that others do it doesn't make it ok.
The entire US health care system is a scam run by doctors, hospitals, pharma, insurance companies. Prices for health care in the US are four to ten times that of the rest of the world. Other developed countries have universal care and better health indicators than the US and they spend less than half what the US spends to cover just part of the population.
We have the most expensive, least effective health care in the world.
No other civilized country would let pharma get away with these obscene prices for drugs. Other countries control prices. However, the US is run by a crony capitalist system where corporations, etc. buy congress to protect their profits.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Low volume of patients. High cost to invent the drug and pass the regulatory hurdles. And it has to subsidize all the drugs they researched that didn't work out. They need to make this money back over the lifetime of the patent or they go out of business.
A couple of researchers try to game that system and the company responds: Nope, prescribe the medicine the patient needs based on the medical evaluation only. We're going to make it cost exactly the same per patient regardless of the dosage you pick.
There are lots of facts here that I don't know. Do they need $150k per patient to break even? I don't know and neither do you. The part that I do know seems relatively reasonable.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
A New York Times article stated that this drug was developed with three other non-viable drugs for a total cost of $388,000,000. Dividing by the stated cost of $143,000 dollars, 2,713 patients have to be treated with this drug for 1 year to recover development costs.
This drug treats Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL). Approximately 20,000 people are diagnosed with CLL each year, and those people have an average age of 71 years. Approximately 4,500 people die each year from CLL. Your lifetime risk of developing CLL is 1 in 175.
Cancer.org lists 5 other treatments (Obliersenn, Lumiliximab, HA22, Lenalidomide, 'standard' chemotherapy) for CLL , and mentions dozens of drugs are in testing for CLL treatment.
You now have more information to discuss alternative treatments, their costs, and why folks would choose one over the other, as well as a greater ability to evaluate the potential profitability of this drug (Imbruvica) at any price point.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
"Intellectual" and "property" were a bad solution and idea from early on. While it makes sense to promote research and development of new drugs, creative works, and so on it doesn't make sense to give companies a monopoly. There is no connection between work performed and the reward. In other industries there is some relationship even if it varies between industries. Of course an issue we have today is that everybody is depending on "intellectual" and "property" for evaluate the value of an investment which just demonstrates the disproportionate value gained through the use of giving private entities access to governmental violence, coercion, and theft to extract the wealth of others for private or personal gain.
The drug was priced that way with a very simple formula.
Number of Patients X Dosage X Cost = Development Cost + Marketing + L. Insurance + Profit
The Dev and Marketing costs are already spent, or at least mostly, and kept at an absolute minimum anyways. The Insurance is probably not going to be negotiable, and the profits are almost certainly a set industry standard. So if the dosage goes down the company either has to increase the number of patients, the cost, or quit selling the drug and just try and take the loss or declare bankruptcy.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'd rather die from cancer than give those motherfuckers a penny. Besides, who wants to live in a world like this anyway?
This is why monopolies used to be broken up - they could price like this. In addition, in this case, it's a life and death product. "How much is your life worth to you? That's how much it costs." Shkreli was was honest and transparent about the reprehensible actions he was taking. The people you need to worry about are the ones who are smiling and empathizing as they knife you. They don't slip out of character either. And they're still leading the industry.
Additionally, the government prohibited itself from negotiating with drug companies for prices for Medicare Part D. Politicians created the "safe space" that those with suitable mentalities could then operate in (and funnel some of the proceeds back to DC).
... at the end of this phrase: "its manufacturer".
I'm not supporting the manufacturer here. But there are some factors to consider why drug prices like this are so high. It's not always just naked greed (though sometimes Shrkelis do happen).
Say you're a pharma company. You work on drugs for rare diseases like this cancer. It takes a lot of money to develop new drugs and bring them to market.
If you're lucky the initial research finding drug candidates will be funded with public grants at a university. But you still have to take those drug candidates from promising lead to actual treatment. That means finding the right dosage. That means figuring out how to make the drug efficiently. It means lots of clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy - not to mention animal trials before you even get to that point. It means lots of regulatory hurdles. Basically the D part of R&D.
All that costs money. Typically we're talking hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. And success rates are low. Something like 10% of potential new drugs make it through the entire process. So for every drug that works, you tried nine others that failed. That raises costs to develop a successful drug even more.
So you get through all that. You now have a treatment for this rare disease. It costs billions to develop, including all the unsuccessful drug candidates you tried that didn't pan out. But the disease only affects 5,000 people a year. If you charge each one $100,000 for the treatment, you get 500 million per year.
If you spent 2 billion to create the drug, then you won't recoup your investment and start making money until year 5. And that doesn't count ongoing costs like manufacturing, quality control, patient monitoring, physician feedback, etc. Your patent on the drug is at most 20 years, and usually closer to 7-8. So you only have a few years to make profit on the drug until generics come in and eat your market.
I'll be the first to say the system stinks. But it's not because of evil profit-seeking drug makers. It's the way the entire system is setup. More drug development costs should be publicly funded. The regulatory approval process should be streamlined. Drug advertising should be illegal. The profit motive is killing US healthcare. We're subsidising drug prices for the rest of the world, where strict price controls limit what drug makers can recoup.
There are a lot of problems with drug development in the US. But it's not primarily the fault of greedy drug makers. It's the economics of the entire system that lead to crazy results like this. Hate the game, not the player.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
There should be laws resulting in those responsible receiving a very expensive lethal injection billed to their estate.
Insufficient simply to rid the world of this scum. It is also necessary to make sure the estate is bankrupted to ensure next-of-kin enjoy same buying power parity as unwashed masses.
... use it
F'kin A
Pharmacyclics (the developers of ibrutinib/Imbrivica) is actually now owned by Abbvie, which is the pharmaceutical company spun off from Abbott Laboratories. Abbott achieved fame in 2003 when it increased the cost of their HIV medication, Norvir, 5-fold when it found that doctors were combining the smaller pill size version with other drugs. This is just history repeating itself.
Your right to life is goes down with your bank balance. Of course, dead patients cannot pay. The optimal path of for-profit medical institutions is to bankrupt you before you die. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, not your life.
I take ibrutinib in a clinical trial, in combination with venetoclax (not FDA approved - but also made by the the same company) for my lymphoma. The combo put me in remission in 3 months after a relapse that happened 18 months after a autologous stem cell transplant.
The core research for ibrutinib was done at Ohio State, with prof John Byrd heading the team. Most basic research on drugs start at universities.
Recently, the FDA approved acalabrutinib, (made by AstraZeneca) which is also a Brutons tyrosine kinase inhibitor like ibrutinib. It has better numbers for disease response than ibrutinib and fewer side effects. So I speculate that the price increase could be (at least partially) due to less revenue stream for Pharmacyclics and an attempt to counteract that.
Start shooting the company exec's that jack up the prices. They are killing the people that need the drug so it seems fair.
_
Nothing to see here. Move on.
There is a solution to greed pharmaceutical companies. Only a couple of countries have ever invoked this, for HIV and Hepatitis C drugs. Lobby your congressperson to use international law to their constituents' advantage for a change, instead of pandering to their donors.
Get rid of the insurance cos and th3 problem will all go away. If people can't afford 100k a year for a drug, the company will lower pric3 to maximize profit.
If food were run like health care an apple would cost 500 usd
All he did was take advantage of a stupid law to maximize profit, then called out the intellectual dolts in Congress when they subpoenaed him. Watch the congressional hearings; it's obvious that Shkreli is smarter than every member of the congressional committee.
It was CONGRESS that created the stupid IP laws which ALLOW this to happen. Abolish IP law and solve the problem
Rewrite patent laws so their duration is inversely proportional to the cost of the drug past some arbitrary number (say $1000 a year).
Companies who play these kind of games will discover that the government is not willing to subsidize their drugs while simultaneously providing unlimited protection from competitors.
I mean seriously- shooters kill over their youtube account being demonetized.
What about you dying?
What about your parent dying?
What about your child dying?
When is someone going to track down the people or corporation increasing the price?
It seems inevitable.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Criminals only intent on making money, we get it.
Anyone who assisted Janssen and Pharmacyclics in jacking up the price should be exterminated. Marketers, executive staff, etc etc., they should all be executed for their inimical, profit-driven actions.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Pill-splitter.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
This kind of shit should be 100% illegal.
The makers should have their patent confiscated and given freely to another party who will price it more reasonably.
In a way I really like the fact that this is coming to a head.
It takes things like capitalism to extremes, and forces the argument about capitalism vs communism.
If you're 100% capitalist, they should be allowed to charge anything they way. They paid for research, they have legal patents, etc etc etc
Anything else means you don't believe in unrestricted capitalism, IE, you believe in some amount of communism.
Ayn Rand (who inspired many of the older generation of business people in her novels) I expect is rolling in her grave. It's okay, she was very black and white about this issue, and really saw things in a very childlike way (imho)
The funny part is this: big pharma, big medicine, and in general big business is so much in control that anything short of full scale widespread strikes, or full scale 3rd party voting (ie, zero dem/rep votes) isn't going to change it at all.
Good luck with the revolution :)
Despite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... why/how Corruption prevails in USA?
Casteism
Free market at work eh? Fucking suckers.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u