Xanax (1 mg). First developed as alprazolam in the late 1970s by Upjohn, this drug is now manufactured by (here we go again) Pfizer, which took over Upjohn in the 1990s. As far as manufacturing costs go, Xanax is especially cheap: it runs Pfizer less than two-and-a-half cents to produce 100 tablets. It’s also extremely profitable: the sale price for a package of 100 is (hold on to your hats) $136.79…and that is a markup of 569,958%.
Prozac (20 mg), made by Eli Lilly and Company. First developed in the 1980s, this is another antidepressant. In order to make 100 tablets, Eli Lilly spends 0.11¢ – but charges patients $247.47, marking up the price by a whopping 224,973%.
Prilosec (20 mg), a proton pump inhibitor used to control serious, chronic cases of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Also known as omeprozole, this medication is manufactured by AstraZeneca. This drug maker spends 0.52¢ to produce 100 tablets – then turns around and sells them for $360.97, at a markup of 69,417%.
Solvadi (400 mg), a treatment for Hepatitis C that is made by Gilead Sciences. In 2014, that drug generated $5.7 billion in sales for the company. Gilead’s cost for the pill is $1.78 – but U.S. patients are having to pay $1,000 apiece, which is a markup of 56,179%. It’s worth noting that in India, that same dosage of Solvadi costs under 273 rupees – which is equivalent to $4 USD.
Daraprim (25 mg), from Turing Pharmaceuticals. Many of you remember how the price of this toxoplasmosis (parasitic infection) treatment went up by 5000% last year after the company was taken over by Martin Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager. This pill costs only $2 to make – yet the company charges patients $750 a pop. That’s a markup of 37,500%
Claritin (10 mg), a hay fever medication from (guess who?) Pfizer and marketed by Bayer. The active ingredients in a 100-pill bottle of Claritin cost only .0.71¢ – but once that bottle reaches pharmacy shelves, it up to $215.17 – a markup of 30,305%. Fortunately for hay fever sufferers, Claritin [lortadine] is available in generic form over the counter – but it’s still not cheap.
Celebrex (100 mg), which also comes from Pfizer. Generically known as celecoxib, this drug is an anti-inflammatory, used to treat pain and inflammation from arthritis. Producing 100 doses costs Pfizer a mere 0.60¢ – but the patient is going to fork over $130.27, representing a 21,712% markup.
Zoloft (50 mg), another antidepressant, another Pfizer product. These pills cost the company $1.75 to produce – and then, they turn around and sell it for $206.87. Markup: 11,821%.
Lipitor (20 mg), a product brought to us by the fine folks at Pfizer. Originally developed in the 1980s by Parke-Davis, this is a statin drug used to help control cholesterol levels. The manufacturing cost for 100 tablets is $5.80, but they’re charging patients $272.37 – representing a markup of 4,696%.
Paxil (20 mg), an antidepressant from GlaxoSmithKline. A package of 100 tablets cost the company $7.50 to manufacture. However, when the consumer picks it up at the pharmacy window, they have to fork over $220.27. As far as markups go, this one is fairly moderate by industry standards: that is “only” 2,898%.
R & D is expensive, but the shareholders and executives aren't exactly going broke. Should medicine and Healthcare be subject to the whims of capitalism? Is it moral to make money off of the sick?
That's subject to the same R&D argument.They have a point; some of these drugs have been around for decades yet the prices are still ridiculously high.
I don't think the existence of generics is the problem.via the banning of generics/competitors.
Food for thought.
That's subject to the same R&D argument.
I don't think the existence of generics is the problem.
Generics work the way copyright was originally intended to work: provide a captive market for a company to get lots of profit from then make the medication more affordable once the company has made enough from it.
What you're talking about is indefinite copyright and that's nothing if not the creation of artificial barriers on competition by government.
It depends on the drug. Something like Xanax has probably had its initial costs repaid a hundred times over.
Ok, so we're on the same page. That is how copyright originally worked.imo a drug designer should be entitled to recoup their investment and then some, but on a reasonable time scale and to only a certain extent.
There are two things your post and his boil down to:Pharma has been using the R&D excuse for years how, but they continue to make massive profits off older products to fund that to begin with to make more massive profits.
Ok, so we're on the same page. That is how copyright originally worked.
Back when it was a short period it was long enough to make adequate money for the creator (provided the creator isn't incompetent in business or screwed over like Tucker was by corruption) but not too long to unnecessarily obstruct innovation.
There are two things your post and his boil down to:
1) The necessity of profit motive to incite innovation, since apparently humans are always greedy pricks that can't do good works for any reason other than hoarding and exploitation.
2) The necessity of protecting the general population from being totally preyed upon by the most effective bloodsuckers, at least to the point at where there will be massive uprising.
Pharma, like the grandchildren of Walt Disney (I assume), feel they are entitled to infinite profit from anything they own. They also feel that whatever they own is owned forever. It's a royalist mindset, the same royalist mindset that has people who oppose the estate tax complaining that the tax treats people as if they're just "renting wealth" — when, in fact, of course they are. All resource hoarding is due to everyone around you giving you permission to do it. You always rent what you "own". That old saying "death and taxes" is about that.
All this boils down, as always, to the most basic conflict in humanity: the social vs. the individual. It's paradoxical because the individual is nothing without society and the society is nothing without the individual. Good luck trying to sort all that out in a pure manner.
The practical approach is to have a short term that blocks IP theft and then have the innovation become public domain. The short term will be long enough to ensure adequate profit but not long enough to overly burden the public in favor of royalist exploitation. Good luck with getting the royals to agree, though.
Stupidity over the course of decades is still stupidity. Only a moron actually can't differentiate between an individual human being and an artificial economic entity. Our "owners" to quote Carlin, though, rely on us being in the moron category.Corporations have been considered individuals for decades legally in regards to some issues.
You need to get with the times.
Only a moron actually can't differentiate between an individual human being and an artificial economic entity.
Reality isn't name-calling. In reality, there is no organic sentient creature called a corporation.I do not make the rules.
You can call the legal system all the names you choose, good luck with that one.
R & D is expensive, but the shareholders and executives aren't exactly going broke. Should medicine and Healthcare be subject to the whims of capitalism? Is it moral to make money off of the sick?
Mark-up over manufacturing costs doesn't say much on its own. Synthesizing most drugs isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things. Testing hundreds of potential model drugs, identifying one that works somewhat, then further refining it hundreds of times over from there, then hoping there aren't too many side effects in your mouse model, and then your human subjects from there is where things cost serious $$$$$$. The real cost of pharmaceuticals is in R&D and FDA approval.
EDIT: You should probably post your source
https://trofire.com/2017/01/13/angry-much-big-pharma-gouging-us/
They have a point; some of these drugs have been around for decades yet the prices are still ridiculously high. The solution? Stop creating government-enforced monopolies via the banning of generics/competitors.
R & D is expensive, but the shareholders and executives aren't exactly going broke. Should medicine and Healthcare be subject to the whims of capitalism? Is it moral to make money off of the sick?
The problem here is congress allows and legally enforces a monopoly on the practice of medicine in America.