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.
...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.
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.
Barriers to entry in the US market?
Ezekiel 23:20
Check the bolded portion below:
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.
The manufacturer of a generic drug still has to prove that their product is as equivalent to original.
The approval process for a new drug is more complex; they have to prove it is safe and that it is effective in rigorous clinical trials. For a generic, they merely have to demonstrate equivalent pharmacological effects (e.g. absorption into the bloodstream in similar quantities and in a similar time, etc.), which is much easier, and requires fewer test subjects, less complex follow-up, etc.
However, to do this sort of trial, you still require access to the original drug, because this type of trial will require head-to-head testing. One of the ways in which Shkreli aimed to stop this was to completely shut down all distribution of the drug. Instead, his company would employ their own pharmacists who would dispense a limited quantity of the dug only on receipt of a named patient's prescription sent directly to the company. By not selling the drug to wholesalers and pharmacies the intention was to make it impractical for other companies to purchase stocks of the drug against which to run trials.
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.
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!
Except last year the con artist said he'd lower drug prices. Then he picked a guy who is a former pharmaceutical executive who raised drug prices.
Even in February's State of the Union address he said he'd lower drug prices.
What has he done so far? Reduce regulations on oil and gas drillers, put a guy in charge of the EPA who is vowed and determined to let polluters off the hook, and started a trade war with China which is already costing Midwest farmers.
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?
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.
Most drugs have a bunch of patents, including ones for the active ingredient, the delivery mechanism, the coating, etc. The patents will have staggered expiration dates, which can maximize the time a drug remains on patent. Albuterol inhalers, for example, which used to be generic until they were reformulated to be ozone safe, has 4 US patents for one particular formulation (ProAir). That helps keep this 40 year old drug at $57-$70 an inhaler. Somehow, back when it was generic, it was $4 an inhaler. Albuterol was supposed to be going generic again any minute now for the past 2-3 years, but it's still hung up in court —all for a drug that probably ought to be over-the-counter. IMHO.
This 2017 article from the New York Times has some of those answers.
Summary: According to SEC filings, Imbruvica cost Pharmacyclics $388 million to develop, which included the development cost of three other drugs that were not successful. Not mentioned in the article is that Pharmacyclics actually paid $2 million in cash and $1 million in stock for the compound from its actual inventor, Celera Genomics, and their expense was mostly related to developing the compound into an salable drug. After the Phase II clinical trials, J&J paid Pharmacyclics $975 million to jointly continue development of the drug. The drug was approved for CLL in 2014, and just over a year after that, Abbvie bought Pharmacyclics for $21 billion (a 5400% return on investment for Pharmacyclics's shareholders), and the drug is now being sold under the "Janssen and Pharmacyclics" name. In 2016, J&P projected Imbruvica sales of $1 billion for that year, increasing to $5 billion by 2020.
In my opinion, the developers of the drug have already been very well paid for their efforts, certainly well enough "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". I haven't been able to find any other information that would lead me to believe that this isn't a simple money grab, and/or that Abbvie simply paid too much for the drug and is extracting the cost of their mistake from patients. If there are other concrete facts that would argue for other legitimate development costs that need to be recouped, I genuinely would be interested to see them.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.