Drug Price Increase from $13.50 to $750

[volinbham]

What is the price of this drug in Canada.

If this is truly the only source I'd bet it's the same (or at least was the same when it was 13.50).

I believe the big price differences are more found in on-patent drugs where US prices are "list price" while versions sold in Canada or elsewhere may be negotiated down.

The Pharma model is going to have to change but I don't know how. It's now between 1 and 2 billion to bring a drug to market and at least 10 years from discovery to availability. It takes several blockbusters on patent to cover the costs of all the ones that fail in the pipeline or never serve significant markets.

 

[volinbham]

Sorry, missed this. As volinbham pointed out, all you have to do is make your idea public before they file for a patent and they cannot sue you or anyone else. Much easier and less expensive to just post it on the web than prepare and prosecute a patent application.

Patent trolling is a different phenomenon and maybe that's what Huff is thinking. If it is, getting a patent doesn't protect you from others making a claim.

For someone to make a claim on something you invented but didn't patent (assuming you made it public) they'd have to pursue a patent on it and then if granted come after you. The likelihood is low though since it's doubtful they'd get the patent in the first place assuming you made your idea public.

 

[Gramps]

Change is difficult to make.

How much tax payer funding is put into pharm r&d each year on top of the private funding?

 

[volinbham]

Change is difficult to make.

How much tax payer funding is put into pharm r&d each year on top of the private funding?

Depends on what you mean by put into?

Some argue that an R&D tax credit is funding being put in (though I never consider the lack of taxes as the same as funding).

Much early drug discovery is done via organizations like the NIH but the primary recipients are universities and other not-for-profits that then may license the discovery to pharma (again, the funding didn't go to pharma)

There are cases where small pharma startups can get SBIR grants and that would be the closest thing to direct funding but it is a small % of overall funding of scientific research.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not an ad hominem attack. Just pointing out your hypocrisy when it is your idea instead of others that you want to sell.

You are misrepresenting my positions so you can paint me as a hypocrite. You are being childish. And it's kinda weird that you obsess over my position. This argument has been going on for months now.

What seems to elude you is that I can be right and be a hypocrite.

 

[Gramps]

Depends on what you mean by put into?

Some argue that an R&D tax credit is funding being put in (though I never consider the lack of taxes as the same as funding).

Much early drug discovery is done via organizations like the NIH but the primary recipients are universities and other not-for-profits that then may license the discovery to pharma (again, the funding didn't go to pharma)

There are cases where small pharma startups can get SBIR grants and that would be the closest thing to direct funding but it is a small % of overall funding of scientific research.

I do not consider the R&D tax credit as funding. I consider it as one of the better tax credits.

Pharmaceutical R & D is a very complicated business that is well over my head, to be honest.

 

[vols4sure]

You are misrepresenting my positions so you can paint me as a hypocrite. You are being childish. And it's kinda weird that you obsess over my position. This argument has been going on for months now.

What seems to elude you is that I can be right and be a hypocrite.

I apologize for misrepresenting your positions. Care to explain what I am misrepresenting: 1) you do not believe in IP protection; 2) you have an idea for a product but you don't particularly want to invest your own money into manufacturing/selling the product so instead you would rather sell the idea and move on to developing other ideas you have; 3) to help you sell the idea and to keep it secret, you will have people sign non-disclosure agreements; and 4) you will seek a patent but don't intend to ever sue anyone for patent infringement (I can only assume this means you intend to dedicate the idea to the public. Otherwise the purchasers of your idea will still be able to sue others for infringing the patent).

Given my understanding above, my question to you has always been why would someone pay good money for your idea if everyone will be allowed to make the product once it goes public? Then, if you cannot sell this idea, are you going to continue to spend your time and money to develop other ideas that will be freely available for all once made public?

 

[508mikey]

What is the price of this drug in Canada.

doesnt matter now http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/big-price-increase-for-tb-drug-is-rescinded.html?_r=0

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If you are outraged by this, then you should be outraged at the counterfeiting that robs you of your labor and wealth each day by the Federal Reserve.

 

[n_huffhines]

I apologize for misrepresenting your positions. Care to explain what I am misrepresenting: 1) you do not believe in IP protection;

I do not believe IP protection (specifically our system) creates the best outcomes, no.

2) you have an idea for a product but you don't particularly want to invest your own money into manufacturing/selling the product so instead you would rather sell the idea and move on to developing other ideas you have

No. I plan on taking product to market myself. After it's successful and I don't like it anymore, I will sell. I don't know where you got that I will sell the "idea" before I take it anywhere. You inferred that conclusion, somehow.

3) to help you sell the idea and to keep it secret, you will have people sign non-disclosure agreements;

Irrelevant in light of my answer to 2.

and 4) you will seek a patent but don't intend to ever sue anyone for patent infringement

Yes

(I can only assume this means you intend to dedicate the idea to the public. Otherwise the purchasers of your idea will still be able to sue others for infringing the patent).

Why is that a logical conclusion? Because I oppose patents, I have to go out of my way to devalue my business? You can bend this stuff however you want to paint me as a hypocrite, but my being a hypocrite does not make me wrong about patents.

Say I'm a hypocrite, you still don't win the argument.

 

[vols4sure]

No. I plan on taking product to market myself. After it's successful and I don't like it anymore, I will sell. I don't know where you got that I will sell the "idea" before I take it anywhere. You inferred that conclusion, somehow.

Good grief, your words: "I'm an ideas guy. I don't really want to build a company where I have to manage manufacturing and warehousing and shipping, etc. I'll do that, but I want to sell and get out and try the next idea so it's always fresh." Hard to make a successful company if you want to sell before you build a company.

Anyways, care to ever answer how you will incentivize research and development (if not you for the majority of people and companies that are after the pursuit of a dollar) in your non IP rights world if the product/idea being developed (such as pharmaceuticals) can be reverse engineered as soon as it hits the shelves.

 

[vols4sure]

And I am done responding to you but I would love to see you articulate how your position that IP should be free for all would not have a net-negative effect on innovation.

 

[508mikey]

the CEO of that drug co. looks like a real pos http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/22/controversial-drug-ceo-was-accused-of-serious-harassment.html

 

[Velo Vol]

And just like that it's not worth $750.

Turing to roll back pricing for Daraprim amid controversy

 

[Biopsyman]

What are someone willing to pay to save or improve your life? Impossible to answer

 

[n_huffhines]

Good grief, your words: "I'm an ideas guy. I don't really want to build a company where I have to manage manufacturing and warehousing and shipping, etc. I'll do that, but I want to sell and get out and try the next idea so it's always fresh." Hard to make a successful company if you want to sell before you build a company.

Uhhhh, I can take a product to market without managing manufacturing and shipping. All that can be outsourced.

Anyways, care to ever answer how you will incentivize research and development (if not you for the majority of people and companies that are after the pursuit of a dollar) in your non IP rights world if the product/idea being developed (such as pharmaceuticals) can be reverse engineered as soon as it hits the shelves.

Let's be clear, both sides base their position solely on theory. You don't know what the world would look like without IP protection, and neither do I. As I've already discussed ITT, there is a tradeoff. You trade big clunky R&D companies for smaller, more flexible organizations. Being first to market is a big motivator. You get notoriety. You don't have to have monopoly status to profit. Even if others can reverse engineer your product, that doesn't mean you don't have enough incentive to invent.

When you choose IP protection, you stifle some and incentivize others. When you choose the free market, you don't stifle anyone. The best ideas win.

 

[n_huffhines]

And just like that it's not worth $750.

Turing to roll back pricing for Daraprim amid controversy

Reputation management. Welcome to the digital age

 

[red butler]

I see the problem with it - the guy is being a d-bag.

However, the stories I read about it make it sound like he's the only one that can make this drug and that's simply not true unless instead of patenting it was held as trade secret and no one could figure out what's in it. (However, I doubt the FDA would ever approve a drug whose contents were unknown).

No company is going to try to compete. Let's say they wanted to. It could take about a year for a manufacturing plant to get approval from the FDA. If the guy has enough pull to get the FDA to delay approvals for companies he's shorting, it could easily take longer. No company is going to invest that much time and capital for a drug with a limited market. If a competitor did get approval in18 months, the guy would just drop his price to keep marketshare. The bottom line is the guy knows he can milk this drug for a long time and make a fortune... Even if it is off patent.

 

[KentheOrange]

I do not believe IP protection (specifically our system) creates the best outcomes, no.

I bet your position would be different if you had any intellectual property.

 

[n_huffhines]

I bet your position would be different if you had any intellectual property.

Your point is that if i were one of the croneys that stood to gain from monopoly protection, i would like the money? I probably would, but that doesn't make it right.

That's like saying, "you would change your mind about government corruption, if you were the one getting your palm greased."

 

[vols4sure]

Uhhhh, I can take a product to market without managing manufacturing and shipping. All that can be outsourced.



Let's be clear, both sides base their position solely on theory. You don't know what the world would look like without IP protection, and neither do I. As I've already discussed ITT, there is a tradeoff. You trade big clunky R&D companies for smaller, more flexible organizations. Being first to market is a big motivator. You get notoriety. You don't have to have monopoly status to profit. Even if others can reverse engineer your product, that doesn't mean you don't have enough incentive to invent.

When you choose IP protection, you stifle some and incentivize others. When you choose the free market, you don't stifle anyone. The best ideas win.

What happens when the small guy with limited production capabilities that is selling his innovative new product on a very small scale at first with hopes of getting bigger. Microsoft or Apple sees the product, immediately begins production/advertising/sales on a large scale, gains notoriety themselves and puts the small guy out of business.

Poor small guy even went to Apple to try to sell his idea to them because he knew his production capabilities were small. Apple even signed a non-disclosure agreement (such agreements generally cease once ideas become publicly known because there is nothing to keep secret anymore). Apple laughed and said we will wait to until you sale your first product and then do it ourselves without paying you a dime.

No recourse for the small guy?

Also sounds like you believe in trademark laws to protect the first to market's notoriety, which is a form of IP and government granted monopoly.

 

[LouderVol]

Capitalism is about competition. Anything that disallows competition also disallows capitalism. Not hard to understand.

so I shouldn't be able to make money from my invention, and I should just allow others to use it as soon as I invent it? What is the point of innovation. I am going to stop inventing new stuff and start stealing other people's ideas in your system.

 

[volinbham]

No company is going to try to compete. Let's say they wanted to. It could take about a year for a manufacturing plant to get approval from the FDA. If the guy has enough pull to get the FDA to delay approvals for companies he's shorting, it could easily take longer. No company is going to invest that much time and capital for a drug with a limited market. If a competitor did get approval in18 months, the guy would just drop his price to keep marketshare. The bottom line is the guy knows he can milk this drug for a long time and make a fortune... Even if it is off patent.

The question here is how long does FDA approval take to clear.

It shouldn't take a year but it is the government so anything is possible.

The part about him influencing the FDA seems far fetched.

 

[volinbham]

Let's be clear, both sides base their position solely on theory. You don't know what the world would look like without IP protection, and neither do I. As I've already discussed ITT, there is a tradeoff. You trade big clunky R&D companies for smaller, more flexible organizations. Being first to market is a big motivator. You get notoriety. You don't have to have monopoly status to profit. Even if others can reverse engineer your product, that doesn't mean you don't have enough incentive to invent.

When you choose IP protection, you stifle some and incentivize others. When you choose the free market, you don't stifle anyone. The best ideas win.

The notion that no IP protection will result in the best ideas winning and small triumphing over large ignores the role of capital and risk.

So lack of IP does indeed stifle some because without some incentive for the early risk capital the ideas never become products.

Is the trade off worth it? That's the source of debate but you can't ignore the trade-off and assume the magic of the market will simply foster all this innovation.

As an example, the reality is that most "inventions" aren't really patentable. They do not meet the criteria of non-obviousness (the murkiest and highest bar). Under an IP doesn't matter framework investors should still be rushing to these since they could still be first to market but investors don't rush to them primarily because the front-end capital simply doesn't merit the risk if the idea has no protection. Empirical research highly questions the "first mover" advantage of being first to market.

 

[n_huffhines]

What happens when the small guy with limited production capabilities that is selling his innovative new product on a very small scale at first with hopes of getting bigger. Microsoft or Apple sees the product, immediately begins production/advertising/sales on a large scale, gains notoriety themselves and puts the small guy out of business.

Poor small guy even went to Apple to try to sell his idea to them because he knew his production capabilities were small. Apple even signed a non-disclosure agreement (such agreements generally cease once ideas become publicly known because there is nothing to keep secret anymore). Apple laughed and said we will wait to until you sale your first product and then do it ourselves without paying you a dime.

No recourse for the small guy?

Also sounds like you believe in trademark laws to protect the first to market's notoriety, which is a form of IP and government granted monopoly.

I don't think you need IP protection for trademark. If someone is trying to pretend to be you, that is fraud. There are laws against that outside of IP protection.

Just to illustrate how beneficial it can be to have the notoriety that comes with being first to market, Google paid something like $3B to acquire Youtube. You don't think Google could have come up with their own patent for video sharing? They wanted the name.

Think about it. If you come up with the cure for a disease, everything you do after that will be noticed. There are so many ways to cash in on innovation.

Eli Whitney didn’t do that well on the cotton gin, and he had a patent. His family made bank on interchangeable parts, no patents.