Pharmco PIGS price point

One of the results from your search query -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamatti ... new-drugs/

In the story there is a paragraph near the bottom which notes that the British system of healthcare, you know, the one that the party of Democrats hopes to fundamentally transform our system into, decided not to pay for a liver cancer drug put out by Bayer called sorafenib because of the cost. It also noted that Bayer had to sell the drug in India at 2% of the set price because Inida essentially ignored the patent that Bayer had on the compound and ordered a domestic company to produce it without compensation to Bayer.

My, my - seems like the results justify any means necessary to achieve them, at least in India. Goes a long way in explaining the pricing to India by Gilead as well, which is something that neither home nor any of the others who are castagating Gilead seem to want to address when they cite how little India is paying compared to what the domestic price is.

And what is the problem associated with pricing a product in accordance to its value? I'm sure that the price for buggy whips is reflective of the supply and demand for that product, that the price of a Prius is set at a point where the value for the price paid is deemed reasonable instead of solely by a formula of cost x profit. I am even certain that a brain surgeon's fee is determined by the value of their skill instead of an hourly rate. Will anyone try and explain, given this reality, why pharmaceuticals should be in a class all by themselves instead of in accordance with every other good or service we purchase?

Good points PS.
Does everyone also deserve decent transportation? Should Toyota be forced to sell their vehicles for $5000?
Should hamburger be priced at $1 a pound?

And this is what happens when Pharma hides the facts that their product causes cancer:

Actos Verdict: Jury Orders Takeda, Eli Lilly To Pay $9 Billion In Damages

April 8 (Reuters) - A U.S. jury ordered Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd to pay $6 billion in punitive damages and Eli Lilly and Co to pay $3 billion in a case claiming that cancer risks to the diabetes drug Actos were concealed, the plaintiffs' lawyer said.

The lawyer, Mark Lanier, said there was "stunned silence" in the packed courtroom following the announcement of the damages.

The jury in Lafayette, Louisiana also ordered the payment of $1.475 million in compensatory damages in the suit.

Takeda's shares in Tokyo tumbled 8.4 percent to 4,415 yen following news of the verdict.

:LMAO: See, without those unreasonable profits, they wouldn't have the money to pay large judgements to plaintiff lawyers, a major supporter to Democrat politicians!
Think how many Rolex's and elections this settlement will buy?

PrintSmith wrote: Which can't be done. The federal government cannot discriminate, which means that it must treat all companies the same, which is why there is an across the board 23.1% discount for all branded medicines by federal statute. That is the best "negotiation" that the federal government has. Which is one of the many, almost innumerable really, reasons why it is a very, very, very bad idea to impose top down management of healthcare for any group, let alone all groups, by the federal government.

Not to mention it doesn't solve the problem that supposedly exists at the moment. Think of it as the 50% off advertised sale price being 50% off retail, not what is normally paid by anyone when the commodity in question isn't placed on sale.

Large scale companies, like Kaiser, already have the ability to negotiate a price on prescriptions and other supplies. Did you not see that mentioned a few pages ago? It's amazing what you miss when you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears so that you don't have to deal with reasoned challenges to what you were spoon fed in your echo chamber, isn't it.

Once again, Printsmith distorts the facts. Pharma is required to provide a rebate to Medicaid based on either a discount from the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) or the "best price" at which that drug is sold. The discount is not a flat 23.1% but depends on the classification of the drug and ranges from 11% to 23.1%.

The "best price" is the best price that is offered to Kaiser or any other insurance company. So the federal government gets the best price offered to any insurance company or better.

It would seem that ObamaCares has done an admirable job in "negotiating" the best possible discount for the taxpayer.


Of course this has nothing to do with the issue of whether Solvadi is an incredible price gouge or whether or not is reasonably priced.

PrintSmith wrote:

By any objective metric, Sovaldi is a good value. The drug costs less on an absolute basis than Incivek (~$100,000 per year), which is reimbursed without question, and is an even better deal if one applies a “cost per cure” methodology (A recent Mt. Sinai study shows a $189,000 cost per cure for Incivek-containing regimens.) Moreover, remember that the government pays nowhere near list price; Medicaid receives a mandatory 23.1% discount on branded drug prices (Sovaldi is covered by privately-administered Medicare Part D plans for patients over 65 years old).

So why all the fuss?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/natesadeghi ... ealthcare/

Are you trying to establish that Forbes published something with distorted facts Dog? If so, then by all means let's see what you have, other than your contentions, that support your position.

AHEM....it's a BLOG......read his bio and the disclaimer .....he MAY have financial interest in the
drugs he blogs about......want to post MORE info on this "contributor"???? ...it's HIS opinion
and NOT Forbes stance...... :coffee-News:

Forbes pays him to write articles for them. Articles on drugs, devices, services and healthcare policy. In other words, this is his area of expertise. If Dog wishes to allege that he is wrong when he says that Medicare receives a mandatory 23.1% discount on branded drugs, then I don't think it unreasonable to request that he demonstrate that his assertions are correct and Nathan Sadeghi-Nejad is wrong given that the author is writing about something within his area of expertise.

AND possible has a VESTED FINANCIAL interest in the drug.....can you confirm or deny that
factor,because it makes an enormous difference in the context of the issue.....

PrintSmith wrote: Will anyone try and explain, given this reality, why pharmaceuticals should be in a class all by themselves instead of in accordance with every other good or service we purchase?

Sorry PS I disagree on this one. For one thing they are an effective monopoly with Patent protection. I don't buy the value argument. Apple could use that and sell Ipads for $10,000 if they locked out all competitors. Toyota sold Prius's for under cost to develop the hybrid market. Software is cheap when MSFT doesn't monopolize it.

I'm a believer in free markets, but not monopolies or patented monopolies. And patents are abused in lots of other industries, not just Pharma. Patents for real innovations and inventions are fine, but the system does not work that way currently. IMO

$1000 pills isn't something I am interested in funding or buying into. If that is the price, I'd just rather they don't bother inventing the crap.