$1,000 Pill For Hepatitis C Spurs Debate Over Drug Prices

[MidwestD]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...for-hepatitis-c-spurs-debate-over-drug-prices


Federal regulators this month opened a new era in the treatment of a deadly liver virus that infects three to five times more people than HIV. Now the question is: Who will get access to the new drug for hepatitis C, and when?

The drug will cost $1,000 per pill. A typical course of treatment will last 12 weeks and run $84,000, plus the cost of necessary companion drugs. Some patients may need treatment for twice as long.

Hepatitis researchers call the drug a in the treatment of this deadly infection. More than 90 percent of patients who get the new drug can expect to be cured of their hepatitis C infection, with few side effects.

Curing hepatitis C has been difficult, involving regimens that don't work as well as the new option and bring harsh side effects.

More than 3 million Americans are infected with , and perhaps 170 million people have the disease worldwide. By comparison, about 1.1 million Americans have , which has infected about 34 million people globally.

What Will It Cost?

The drug company of Foster City, Calif., manufactures Sovaldi. And some activists are beginning to complain about the company's decision to charge so much for the drug. "For Gilead, we have outrage, pure and simple," Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation Business Wire.

But , a vice president at Gilead, says the high price is fully justified. "We didn't really say, 'We want to charge $1,000 a pill,' " Alton says. "We're just looking at what we think was a fair price for the value that we're bringing into the health care system and to the patients."
-

Oh so you wanna be cured?

That will be $1,000......
















....per pill :smugkermit1:

 

[DEAD7]

edit:From what I have read on this drug, the price will likely be going up

 

[acri1]

All is fair in the free market, I'm sure the drug company will regulate itself.

Spoiler

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

R&D ain't free brehs.

 

[DEAD7]

All is fair in the free market, I'm sure the drug company will regulate itself.

Spoiler

How is regulation relevant? Do you really believe prices should be set by third parties?

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

R&D ain't free brehs.

I need to see some receipts to justify a 1000$ a pill

 

[acri1]

How is regulation relevant? Do you really believe prices should be set by third parties?

I know all you're going to hear is "Marxist Socialist Government-lover blah blah blah" but we could start by looking at how other countries deal with this issue. For example Canada has something called a "Patented Medicine Price Review Board" to make sure that the prices of prescription medication don't get too ridiculous. In fact, IIRC there's a law that says that the price of a breakthrough med can't exceed the median worldwide price.

In fact I'm pretty sure most industrialized countries enact price controls for pharmaceuticals. But I'm sure that's just because they're all Marxists who want to steal people's freedom.

 

[DEAD7]

I know all you're going to hear is "Marxist Socialist Government-lover blah blah blah" but we could start by looking at how other countries deal with this issue. For example Canada has something called a "Patented Medicine Price Review Board" to make sure that the prices of prescription medication don't get too ridiculous. In fact, IIRC there's a law that says that the price of a breakthrough med can't exceed the median worldwide price.

In fact I'm pretty sure most industrialized countries enact price controls for pharmaceuticals. But I'm sure that's just because they're all Marxists who want to steal people's freedom.

In short distorting supply and demand in order to make these drugs more available.

I get it, but how does the cost(of life) had no drug been developed factor in?

(5) statistical analyses suggest that Canadian prices of new patented drugs subject to Board review were, on average, one-third lower than had there been no Board; and (6) restraint of drug prices reduces the incentive for manufacturers to undertake innovative pharmaceutical research and development.

edit:seems like a reasonable trade off IMO... unless you can show that this drug would developed in the absence of the profit 'incentive'.

Spoiler

Marxist!!!!

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

will obama-care cover it

 

[Type Username Here]

In short distorting supply and demand in order to make these drugs more available.

I get it, but how does the cost(of life) had no drug been developed factor in?

Spoiler

Marxist!!!!

You just proved that capitalism is broken and not compatible with human progress. They put profits over human well-being. Thus, the governments and public should fund things such as this. The private sector cannot be trusted with the welfare of society.

For example, in the global warming thread, you posted a sarcastic smiley after I essentially said what you did: the free market doesn't care about about long-term stability or human survival, only short term profits.

I'm glad you see the light now.

 

[DEAD7]

You just proved that capitalism is broken and not compatible with
1-human progress.
2-They put profits over human well-being.
3-Thus, the governments and public should fund things such as this.
4-The private sector cannot be trusted with the welfare of society.

5-For example, in the global warming thread, you posted a sarcastic smiley after I essentially said what you did: the free market doesn't care about about long-term stability or human survival, only short term profits.

I'm glad you see the light now.

1- This term "human progress" is slick, and I notice liberals use it often without defining/explaining what it is, but thats another conversation altogether. I don't think anyone on either side of the isle, or watching from the sideline is against "progress". Its a debate on where and how we should move forward, not whether we should move at all or not...

2- The profit motive provided incentive for the creation of this life saving drug... and will result in the saving of lives. A positive outcome, no matter how you try to spin the issue of cost.
Moreover until we see the resources required in the drugs manufacturing, we cant assume people are being fleeced or overcharged... nor can we assume they aren't...

3- The track record of American govt. on this front is pretty bad...

4- No one can, Whats your point?

5- I do believe global warming to be real, I am just hesitant(as many capitalist are) to jump on the govt. needs to spend to fix/slow it train. TBH I'm not sure what to make of the issue...


if people are being overcharged I am with you 100% (actually 75%), but without that knowledge... I cant rock with the condemnation of this pharmaceutical company.

 

[Type Username Here]

1- This term "human progress" is slick, and I notice liberals use it often without defining/explaining what it is, but thats another conversation altogether. I don't think anyone on either side of the isle, or watching from the sideline is against "progress". Its a debate on where and how we should move forward, not whether we should move at all or not...

I consider human progress to be very simple: improve the living conditions of humans, improve the health and life of humans, and to foster a system that puts the aforementioned criteria above profits.

2- The profit motive provided incentive for the creation of this life saving drug... and will result in the saving of lives. A positive outcome, no matter how you try to spin the issue of cost.
Moreover until we see the resources required in the drugs manufacturing, we cant assume people are being fleeced or overcharged... nor can we assume they aren't...

No, the scientists, physicians, and others who worked on this drug created it. Don't throw aside what the labor did. The people who funded it and ran the company were driven by profit. So if the problem is funding, surely we can find a source of funding that prioritizes low costs and increased use, and employs the same people who created it in the first place. You're acting like the CEO put in work friend. The profits will remain mostly in the hands of the few at the company, the labor will not be given anywhere near the fair share (as relative to the executives/board) in the grand scheme of things.

3- The track record of American govt. on this front is pretty bad...

Track record on what front? Funding scientists who put humans on the moon? Funding a space program that has sent an object out of the solar system that is still able to communicate to earth? Funding a mission to send a robot to Mars? Funding the control of nuclear fission? Funding the creation of the internet? Funding the creation of GPS? Funding an unprecedented national highway system? Funding polio vaccine? It seems there is a very clear precedent about funding scientists, engineers and other STEM fields and getting shyt done properly. So please stop with that nonsense. If the funding exists, and there are educated people, things can get done.

This doesn't even scratch the surface of funding of state owned schools who contribute to a bulk of research. Those people are government employees if you didn't know.

4- No one can, Whats your point?

5- I do believe global warming to be real, I am just hesitant(as many capitalist are) to jump on the govt. needs to spend to fix/slow it train. TBH I'm not sure what to make of the issue...

This is my point. The free market has no solution in which its key industries will suffer or cease to exist. It puts short term profit over human survival and irreversible damage to our way of life. This isn't something new, so you can be hesitant all you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning

Beginning in 1965, with the publication of Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man, Patterson tried to draw public attention to the problem of increased lead levels in the environment and the food chain due to lead from industrial sources.

Patterson's efforts ultimately led to the Environmental Protection Agency announcing in 1973 a reduction of 60-65% in phased steps, and ultimately the removal of lead from all standard, consumer, automotive gasoline in the United States by 1986. Lead levels within the blood of Americans are reported to have dropped by up to 80% by the late 1990s

The thing is, the people Patterson was going head-to-head with knew the lead was poisoning people. They couldn't afford to lose profits though. Here we are again.

 

[DEAD7]

No, the scientists, physicians, and others who worked on this drug created it. Don't throw aside what the labor did. The people who funded it and ran the company were driven by profit. So if the problem is funding, surely we can find a source of funding that prioritizes low costs and increased use, and employs the same people who created it in the first place. You're acting like the CEO put in work friend. The profits will remain mostly in the hands of the few at the company, the labor will not be given anywhere near the fair share (as relative to the executives/board) in the grand scheme of things.

I'm referring to the cost of materials, labor, and logistics of getting this product on the market. To say we can asses this cost, and determine an appropriate price from where we are(you and I) is insane IMO. We simply dont have enough information to judge this price.
Now, I get you want to burn the CEO, and thats cool, but that doesn't change the 'real cost' of manufacturing this drug, and the 'real demand' for it... and the fact that those who invested expect to recoup their investment, and turn a profit.


... and its important to remember the result of these efforts will result in lives saved. Lives that would not be saved without these efforts, regardless of their motives/intentions.

 

[Type Username Here]

I'm referring to the cost of materials, labor, and logistics of getting this product on the market. To say we can asses this cost, and determine an appropriate price from where we are(you and I) is insane IMO. We simply dont have enough information to judge this price.
Now, I get you want to burn the CEO, and thats cool, but that doesn't change the 'real cost' of manufacturing this drug, and the 'real demand' for it... and the fact that those who invested expect to recoup their investment, and turn a profit.


... and its important to remember the result of these effort will result in lives saved. Lives that would not be saved without these efforts, regardless of their motives/intentions.

You final statement is absurdly false. Those lives could be saved if we prioritize government funding as a means to tackle on these problems. These things are too important to leave to the private sector. The private sector only cares about profit. This is not compatible with the concept of a society, social harmony and human health in the long run. This has been documented time and time again.

 

[DEAD7]

You final statement is absurdly false. Those lives could be saved if we prioritize government funding as a means to tackle on these problems. These things are too important to leave to the private sector. The private sector only cares about profit. This is not compatible with the concept of a society, social harmony and human health in the long run. This has been documented time and time again.

Could be? Sure, but they aren't at the moment, and right now these lives are being saved in no small part by the profit motive... and we still don't know what the profit margin looks like.