Pharmco PIGS price point

homeagain wrote:
I would add, that if I had cancer I would NOT opt for the basic "one size fits all" chemo/radiation
treatment....but RATHER I would expect a more targeted,genome based view, one which would
hopefully MITIGATE the negative effects of the treatment.....(my understanding)....personalized
medicine is in it's infancy but it is STILL more preferable....JMO

Well good luck with that, especially after the government takes over the last of your health choices. And as for genetics, my low rate Kaiser plan paid for genetic tests on me about 6 months ago and I got the results back about a month ago. Supposedly I have something called Lynch Disease which comes from a gene mutation that is hereditary and makes it about 50% more like that I will have multiple cancers (which I did have). I think this information would have been helpful to me a decade ago, but the tests cost around 3k and this isn't something insurance companies are likely going to pay for prior to getting cancer. And having that diagnosis at the same time of my cancer would not have helped me beat it imo.

Personalized medicine as you call it is something I would love to see more of, that's why I am so against government getting involved. The bigger the government, the smaller the individual... I forgot where I heard that but I believe it with every fiber of my being. To get more personalized treatment, you need less patients per doctor... not likely to happen unless you have an abundance of resources to pay for it.

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote: I KNOW you like to play devil's advocate, but in THIS case.....the kool-aid you are drinking is
detrimental to ALL.....drug advertising COST and TV spots are NOT inexpensive.....WHO do you
think pays for those "ask your doctor about"....? When you walk into your doctors office and
REQUEST a drug you have seen on TV,WHO is reaping the reward ....YOU?.....(NOT)....it's
pretty simple...pharmco has a vested interest in making SURE their product is on your mind.

Maybe PS already pointed this out and I missed it, but have you considered the fact that anyone can sue a drug company for side effects of that drug whether or not that drug was directly responsible for the side effect? There are as many commercials from ambulance chasers fishing for people who think they have been damaged by a drug... a drug that may have helped many more than have been hurt. The is a massive cost to these lawsuits and these present and future costs must be calculated (something gov't doesn't understand).
Doctors face these same lawsuits that may or may not be valid.

If you look at one of the reasons why Canadian drugs are cheaper, you'll see that Canadians are less encouraged to sue and pharma companies have less liability costs compared to US counterparts.

Am I wrong here? And should an individual be able to sue a drug company for a drug that was approved by the FDA?

Rick wrote:

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote: I KNOW you like to play devil's advocate, but in THIS case.....the kool-aid you are drinking is
detrimental to ALL.....drug advertising COST and TV spots are NOT inexpensive.....WHO do you
think pays for those "ask your doctor about"....? When you walk into your doctors office and
REQUEST a drug you have seen on TV,WHO is reaping the reward ....YOU?.....(NOT)....it's
pretty simple...pharmco has a vested interest in making SURE their product is on your mind.

Maybe PS already pointed this out and I missed it, but have you considered the fact that anyone can sue a drug company for side effects of that drug whether or not that drug was directly responsible for the side effect? There are as many commercials from ambulance chasers fishing for people who think they have been damaged by a drug... a drug that may have helped many more than have been hurt. The is a massive cost to these lawsuits and these present and future costs must be calculated (something gov't doesn't understand).
Doctors face these same lawsuits that may or may not be valid.

If you look at one of the reasons why Canadian drugs are cheaper, you'll see that Canadians are less encouraged to sue and pharma companies have less liability costs compared to US counterparts.

Am I wrong here? And should an individual be able to sue a drug company for a drug that was approved by the FDA?

The Supreme Court found that the FDA only approves a minimum set of requirements for a drug to go through, that with the limited budget of the FDA and the thousands of drugs on the market, that the FDA can not provide a fail safe system for ensuring patient safety. The Court held that in the recent case, that Wyeth was aware that there were issues with certain types of administration of their drug that could result in injury or even death, yet Wyeth failed to provide a stronger warning of this possibility. The Supreme Court held that states can have stronger requirements than the FDA, that the FDA requirements are a minimum.

So to answer your question, absolutely an individual should be able to sue a pharmaceutical company if that company does not provide proper information to the FDA, or if the company is aware of greater risks from their product than the FDA is aware of and fails to properly warn the patient of those risks.
A company should not be able to hide behind the FDA for their own negligence.

homeagain wrote: I KNOW you like to play devil's advocate, but in THIS case.....the kool-aid you are drinking is
detrimental to ALL.....drug advertising COST and TV spots are NOT inexpensive.....WHO do you
think pays for those "ask your doctor about"....? When you walk into your doctors office and
REQUEST a drug you have seen on TV,WHO is reaping the reward ....YOU?.....(NOT)....it's
pretty simple...pharmco has a vested interest in making SURE their product is on your mind.

And that is different from car companies, hardware companies, clothing companies, grocers, brewers, fuel companies, tire companies, insurance companies, State and national insurance exchanges and nearly every other aspect of your life for some reason? An informed population is better able to make decisions than one which is not, aren't they? Why should the populace not know of all the options for treating their condition? Is there some reason why a patient shouldn't know what drugs are out there and have a chance to research them and should simply blindly accept the prescription written by their doctor? I thought we wanted individuals who were involved in their health care decisions, did I miss something?

Something the Dog Said wrote: You have failed to provide a single fact that supports your allegations that the price of the drug is solely based on the cost of development of the drug. Just more pedantic smears.

Pedantic is a good word for your understanding of operating a company with many product lines based on your offerings thus far. You rail against the cost of a single tree and ignore the forest that surrounds it. Some products are heavy profit makers, some not so much. Research is expensive. The profits from the sale of one successful drug allows research into others to be conducted. It expands the number of researchers a company can hire, allows them to pay for top notch talent for their research team, the best emerging technology to assist them in their research.

What we have now are insurance companies who have an incentive to pay for expensive treatments thanks to the 80% rule in the (un)Affordable Care Act. Did you think that the insurance company was going to take a reduction in their total profit dollars because the party of Democrats limited the percentage that their profit represents? Paying $84K for a treatment helps them meet that 80% mandate. The more they allow physician costs to rise, the more the cost of treatment rises, the more they can charge for premiums and still stay within the profit mandate handed down by the Democrats elected to federal offices. Everyone then makes money, except for the middle class which was just screwed royally by the Democrats of course. Tell me something Dog, what happens when a cost doubles and profit margins remain the same? Do not profit dollars double as well without changing the profit margin? Add that to the corporate welfare the public subsidies represent for the insurance companies and you have in practice everything the party of Democrats try to deny when they open their mouths to speak. If you want an example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare you don't need to look any further than the (un)Affordable Care Act to see perfect examples of both.

Yes, pedantic perfectly describes your understanding. You are a good parrot, but not much for independent thinking. These were all flaws which were pointed out while the legislation was pending while the Democrats were busy lying about being able to keep your doctor and your insurance plan if you were happy with it and demonizing those who were accurately portraying the flaws the legislation contained.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court found that the FDA only approves a minimum set of requirements for a drug to go through, that with the limited budget of the FDA and the thousands of drugs on the market, that the FDA can not provide a fail safe system for ensuring patient safety. The Court held that in the recent case, that Wyeth was aware that there were issues with certain types of administration of their drug that could result in injury or even death, yet Wyeth failed to provide a stronger warning of this possibility. The Supreme Court held that states can have stronger requirements than the FDA, that the FDA requirements are a minimum.

So to answer your question, absolutely an individual should be able to sue a pharmaceutical company if that company does not provide proper information to the FDA, or if the company is aware of greater risks from their product than the FDA is aware of and fails to properly warn the patient of those risks.
A company should not be able to hide behind the FDA for their own negligence.

So if that is the case, is it reasonable to assume that any and every drug at some point will have some bad side effects for some person who then feels like they can sue? And therefore, drug companies would have to figure in these future costs as part of their pricing... big profits today could turn into big losses tomorrow. In a country as sue happy as this one, this risk has a very high cost which has to be passed down, otherwise who is going to develop these new drugs?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: You have failed to provide a single fact that supports your allegations that the price of the drug is solely based on the cost of development of the drug. Just more pedantic smears.

Pedantic is a good word for your understanding of operating a company with many product lines based on your offerings thus far. You rail against the cost of a single tree and ignore the forest that surrounds it. Some products are heavy profit makers, some not so much. Research is expensive. The profits from the sale of one successful drug allows research into others to be conducted. It expands the number of researchers a company can hire, allows them to pay for top notch talent for their research team, the best emerging technology to assist them in their research.

What we have now are insurance companies who have an incentive to pay for expensive treatments thanks to the 80% rule in the (un)Affordable Care Act. Did you think that the insurance company was going to take a reduction in their total profit dollars because the party of Democrats limited the percentage that their profit represents? Paying $84K for a treatment helps them meet that 80% mandate. The more they allow physician costs to rise, the more the cost of treatment rises, the more they can charge for premiums and still stay within the profit mandate handed down by the Democrats elected to federal offices. Everyone then makes money, except for the middle class which was just screwed royally by the Democrats of course. Tell me something Dog, what happens when a cost doubles and profit margins remain the same? Do not profit dollars double as well without changing the profit margin? Add that to the corporate welfare the public subsidies represent for the insurance companies and you have in practice everything the party of Democrats try to deny when they open their mouths to speak. If you want an example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare you don't need to look any further than the (un)Affordable Care Act to see perfect examples of both.

Yes, pedantic perfectly describes your understanding. You are a good parrot, but not much for independent thinking. These were all flaws which were pointed out while the legislation was pending while the Democrats were busy lying about being able to keep your doctor and your insurance plan if you were happy with it and demonizing those who were accurately portraying the flaws the legislation contained.

Once again, not a single fact, just pedantic ramblings that have nothing to do with the topic.

Do you have a single fact that supports your assertion that the pricing of the Solivad drug by Gilead is solely based on the cost of bringing that product to market? Nope, not a single fact.

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court found that the FDA only approves a minimum set of requirements for a drug to go through, that with the limited budget of the FDA and the thousands of drugs on the market, that the FDA can not provide a fail safe system for ensuring patient safety. The Court held that in the recent case, that Wyeth was aware that there were issues with certain types of administration of their drug that could result in injury or even death, yet Wyeth failed to provide a stronger warning of this possibility. The Supreme Court held that states can have stronger requirements than the FDA, that the FDA requirements are a minimum.

So to answer your question, absolutely an individual should be able to sue a pharmaceutical company if that company does not provide proper information to the FDA, or if the company is aware of greater risks from their product than the FDA is aware of and fails to properly warn the patient of those risks.
A company should not be able to hide behind the FDA for their own negligence.

So if that is the case, is it reasonable to assume that any and every drug at some point will have some bad side effects for some person who then feels like they can sue? And therefore, drug companies would have to figure in these future costs as part of their pricing... big profits today could turn into big losses tomorrow. In a country as sue happy as this one, this risk has a very high cost which has to be passed down, otherwise who is going to develop these new drugs?

Nope. If a company becomes aware of a bad side effect, then they have an affirmative duty to warn customers of that bad side effect. If they do not, then they should and will be liable for harm that ensues.

You are ignoring the facts. If a company makes the FDA fully aware of all harmful side effects, issues with the application of the product, and all other evidence of harm from their product, and provides adequate and sufficient warnings to the patients, then they are shielded. However, as in the recent case, if a company such as Wyeth becomes aware of potential harm from certain applications of their product and does not issue warnings of that harm, then they should be and will be liable for harm that ensues.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court found that the FDA only approves a minimum set of requirements for a drug to go through, that with the limited budget of the FDA and the thousands of drugs on the market, that the FDA can not provide a fail safe system for ensuring patient safety. The Court held that in the recent case, that Wyeth was aware that there were issues with certain types of administration of their drug that could result in injury or even death, yet Wyeth failed to provide a stronger warning of this possibility. The Supreme Court held that states can have stronger requirements than the FDA, that the FDA requirements are a minimum.

So to answer your question, absolutely an individual should be able to sue a pharmaceutical company if that company does not provide proper information to the FDA, or if the company is aware of greater risks from their product than the FDA is aware of and fails to properly warn the patient of those risks.
A company should not be able to hide behind the FDA for their own negligence.

So if that is the case, is it reasonable to assume that any and every drug at some point will have some bad side effects for some person who then feels like they can sue? And therefore, drug companies would have to figure in these future costs as part of their pricing... big profits today could turn into big losses tomorrow. In a country as sue happy as this one, this risk has a very high cost which has to be passed down, otherwise who is going to develop these new drugs?

Nope. If a company becomes aware of a bad side effect, then they have an affirmative duty to warn customers of that bad side effect. If they do not, then they should and will be liable for harm that ensues.

You are ignoring the facts. If a company makes the FDA fully aware of all harmful side effects, issues with the application of the product, and all other evidence of harm from their product, and provides adequate and sufficient warnings to the patients, then they are shielded. However, as in the recent case, if a company such as Wyeth becomes aware of potential harm from certain applications of their product and does not issue warnings of that harm, then they should be and will be liable for harm that ensues.

How can a drug know of every side effect for every individual person? You assume that these drugs are exact science, which they are not, nor are they ever likely to be perfect. This isn't like the cigarette argument... these companies risk a lot of capital to create drugs that help people. Yes, they make evil profit, but they deserve that profit for taking that risk. Now if 10 years after a drug has been on the market some scientist finds evidence that this popular drug causes cancer, does that mean the drug company should have know about it or anticipated it could cause cancer?

Well, THIS has certainly been an ENLIGHTENING (albeit disheartening) page of posts.....Until
NOW, I thought a larger percentage of people were aware of the woefully LACKING FDA,it's
shortage of personnel (inspectors,ect.)AND it's limited ability to ACTUALLY perform the job
that is required of it.....there is NO budget for adequate oversight...NOT in food OR drug and
IF you believe that you are "safe" in knowing what goes into your mouth/body.....I believe you
are fool-hearted....JMO

If GM KNEW of defects,but opted to IGNORE a small,inexpensive fix.....WHAT makes you think
the drug companies are NOT doing the same thing.... I can't count the number
of drugs that have been PULLED OFF THE MARKET (after approval from FDA) because ADEQUATE
oversight was not done....the list is frightening. Doing the RESEARCH makes
you keenly aware of the shortfalls of the FDA......look it up for yourself.....it takes effort I
know,but I am truly tired of the laziness exhibited sometimes.....

We get back to the ORIGINAL information......$1,000 Dollars A PILL is obnoxious and out of
line....GREED at it's utmost ugliness......JMO