Slashdot Mirror


Citing 'Moral Requirement To Make Money', Pharma CEO Jacks Drug Price 400% (arstechnica.com)

The chief executive of a small pharmaceutical company defended hiking the price of an essential antibiotic by more than 400 percent and told the Financial Times that he thinks "it is a moral requirement to make money when you can." From a report: Nirmal Mulye, CEO of the small Missouri-based drug company Nostrum Laboratories, raised the price of bottle of nitrofurantoin from $474.75 to $2,392 last month. The drug is a decades-old antibiotic used to treat urinary-tract infections caused by Escherichia coli and certain other Gram-negative bacteria. The World Health Organization lists nitrofurantoin as an essential medicine. In an interview with the FT, Mulye went on to say it was also a "moral requirement" to "sell the product for the highest price," and he explained that he was in "this business to make money."

5 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Decades old by avandesande · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a better solution would be to let the US citizens freely engage in commerce and give them a choice to purchase drugs from overseas

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  2. Re:He's not wrong by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canadian here. Most people love our health care system and will fight to keep it. Yes there are some downsides, like some longer waits. Yet people who really need it do get care immediately. It's not really as bad as the vocal minority make it sound. Don't just take my word for it.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  3. Moral requirement not to support patents by FeelGood314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Patents have never been to spur innovation. Their purpose is to preserve knowledge. We as society decided we would trade a limited monopoly on an invention for the complete description of that invention. The invention was supposed to be innovative such that any other person knowledgeable in the craft would say "hey, that's a really good idea, I can use that". I should want to read patents because they would teach me, they should be a resource when I want to solve a problem. Journalists should publish them in trade journals because of the innovation in them.

    Inventors will invent because we want to solve problems, because there is profit in providing solutions to our customers. We don't need patents to do that. (and we don't need drug patents either - our way of developing drugs is wasteful and broken)

    Today when someone actually comes up with something innovative they often don't patent it. Manufacturing methods, if they are truly useful are rarely patented. Small companies can't defend a patent and any inventor who is altruistic will publish their idea almost anywhere other than the patent office. Not only are patents now unreadable (I can't make any sense of any of the patents my name is on) but we are told not to read them because it might increase our companies liability.

    When companies spend more money on patent lawyers than on new product development (Apple, google, Oracle) or get screwed when they don't (RIM/Black Berry) we have a problem.

    It is now your moral duty to shun East Texas and actively fight patent laws.

  4. Re:He's not wrong by Pulzar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Canadian here. Most people love our health care system and will fight to keep it. Yes there are some downsides, like some longer waits. Yet people who really need it do get care immediately. It's not really as bad as the vocal minority make it sound.

    As someone who's lived in both places, I can tell you that the biggest downside of Canadian system over US is all the times where you'd really like to get care right away, but you're not going to die if you don't. *That's* the stuff that really sucks in Canada.

    Emergency room visits where you're not bleeding out on the floor, or finding an obstetrician when you get pregnant that's not an hour away, finding a specialist to listen to your baby's heart when it sounds a little off, father needing a hip replacement... With all of those, I've had bad experiences in Canada.

    In US, if I need a doctor, I can almost always find one the next day, or next week if it's a really unique case. It absolutely sucks having to deal with insurance, costs, and so on, don't get me wrong.... but it is nice to know that I can see someone quickly when I need help.

    Both sides need improvement, and Canadian system is a much better starting point... but it's not all roses up there either :(.

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  5. Re:The reason you can buy the drug for $18 by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    internationally is that you're buying from countries that have single payer healthcare and therefore can negotiate much, much better drug prices than private insurance companies can/do. The free market doesn't solve drug prices.

    You can buy generic Nitrofurantoin in the US for $15 for 14 capsules. That's what the free market provides.

    The reason American insurance companies pay $2800 for the same treatment is because under the ACA, they can get away with this crap and maximize their profits.

    There really is only one solution and it's single payer.

    The US has a large single payer system and it is horrendously inefficient. If you want to use single payer to lower drug prices, you need European-style nationalized healthcare.