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.

25 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Crimes against humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hang them

    1. Re:Crimes against humanity by www.goatse.ru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Martin Shkreli got off scot-free in my book. These people should be hanged for all the deaths they cause to people who can't afford their drugs.

      Big Pharma is JUST LIKE big insurance, folks. They write the laws in their own favor.

    2. Re:Crimes against humanity by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      The company made all doses the same price. You can buy the four times stronger pills, cut them in four parts and save yourself 75%.

      That doesn't work with all drugs - for example, some drugs have an enteric coating that prevents it from dissolving in the stomach, others may have a time release coating, etc.

    3. Re:Crimes against humanity by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our Minuteman and nuclear sub force is enough to deter invasion.

      Right, keep the nuclear deterrents but get rid of any and all defensive weapons. Boats? Bullets? Rifles, tanks, attack aircraft? "We don't need 'em anymore; we've got nukes."

    4. Re:Crimes against humanity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without profits, there is no incentive to do any R&D.

      That's utter horseshit. You've been so brainwashed by the ubiquitous marketing of a late-stage capitalist system that you can't even fathom someone doing research without corporate sponsorship. It's robbed you of imagination.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Crimes against humanity by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He absolutely is that bad and he's a total ass besides. He deserved all that he got and more.

      Unfortunately and most telling, none of what he got was for his shenanigans with drug prices. He got away scott-free for that.

    6. Re:Crimes against humanity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I cannot fathom is someone paying tens or hundreds of millions for a clinical trial.

      The numbers that get thrown about regarding the cost of conducting clinical trials are inflated by thousands of percent. Profits are disguised as costs. It's a huge scam. Plus, much of the cost of clinical trials in the US is subsidized by the taxpayers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Crimes against humanity by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 5, Informative

      We already fund up to 80% of pharmaceutical R&D through our taxes. You forget that the pharmaceutical lobby is the most powerful one in Washington. It's a rigged system and we pay the price. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

      I live in Japan, where the government is allowed to negotiate prices and can declare certain things (such as MRIs) benefits to the common good and therefore mandate that they be made cheaply available. Finally, drug patents only last for three years. One of the reasons the TPP would be bad news for the other countries: the US wants everyone to extend the patents to 12.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    8. Re: Crimes against humanity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Source? Of course you don't have knee because your lying.

      OK...I'd think by know you ACs would know better than to challenge me.

      This one is to show R&D and clinical trial costs are inflated.

      https://www.npr.org/sections/h...

      And this one is to show that profit is being reported as costs when a pharma does R&D and clinical trials (this one might be behind a paywall for you).

      https://www.nature.com/article...

      Forbes did a survey of 100 pharmaceutical companies. The average estimate they gave for the cost of developing a new prescription drug and bringing it to market was $5 billion (with a "b"). It turns out that the average new drug costs $30-40 million for R&D plus clinical trials.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  3. And when true drug price controls... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

  4. Public interest by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. This is the economic system... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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. Re:This is the economic system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except it's not the free market, because this only happens due to a government granted monopoly on the drug formulation (i.e. the patents).

    2. Re:This is the economic system... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...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.

      "'Money before people', Ted, it's the company motto, written right on the lobby floor. It just looks more heroic in Latin."
      -- Veronica Palmer, Better Off Ted, Season 1, Episode 4.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Re:This is what I don't understand. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Check the bolded portion below:

    In the United States, as of 2015, with Turing Pharmaceuticals' acquisition of the US marketing rights for Daraprim tablets,[25] Daraprim has become a single-source and specialty pharmacy item, and the price of Daraprim has been increased.[26] The cost of a monthly course for a person on 75 mg dose rose to about $75,000/month, or $750 per tablet.[27][28] Outpatients can no longer obtain Daraprim from their community pharmacy, but only through a single dispensing pharmacy, Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, and institutions can no longer order from their general wholesaler, but have to set up an account with the Daraprim Direct program.[26][29] Presentations from Retrophin, a company formerly headed by Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing, from which Turing acquired the rights to Daraprim, suggest that a closed distribution system could prevent generic competitors from legally obtaining the drugs for the bioequivalence studies required for FDA approval of a generic drug.[29]

  7. Re:This is what I don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. In Europe drugs are 1/10-1/20th of USA price by lamer01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  9. et tu by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Where are all of the free market supporters? by quonset · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. It's the prices, stupid! by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  12. Let's toss in some numbers... by dfenstrate · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  13. Re: This is what I don't understand. by dmr001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:The company's position might be reasonable. by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  15. When is a cancer patient going to shoot them? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.