Price of $10 drug to go to $1500 next week.

[no1_vern]

The Associated Press: Preemie birth preventive spikes from $10 to $1,500

A drug for high-risk pregnant women has cost about $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

That's because the drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved.

Wait a sec, a drug that costs $10 to make, now costs $1500 per dose to be federally approved?

[Gomer]

I bet it's not that expensive in Canada... and well regulated to boot!

[Gomer]

It's called rationing.

Great post by the way, this just goes to show you the cost of government regulations.

Rationing has nothing to do with it in this instance.

The price is now through the roof because the FDA has facilitated a monopoly for this company by granting what amounts to a patent on something that had previously existed. Are you against patents?

The company has justified the cost of the drug by saying that it is still cheaper than the cost of a premature birth ($51,000). That's the only reason they've said it is more expensive.

It's pure price gouging and profit taking by the new "manufacturer" and that's it.

[Gomer]

This happens with lots of drugs and needlessly drives up the prices to la-la land.



And how is the monopoly enforced? By the government.

No free market to blame here folks!



This is a government intervention creating a monopoly, plain and simple. Brought to you by the FDA.

Enjoy your new health care premiums that are bound to skyrocket to pay for it.

You didn't answer my question... Are you against patents?

At least you are agreeing that "Heavily regulated supply" has nothing to do with this.

[Chuckiechan]

I think the drug maker was "At the table" with Obama & Co.

[Gomer]

I believe the system needs reform.

Reform, yes. Abolishment, no.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest it's anything close to perfect.

Well, this does regulate supply by only allowing one company to supply the product, and then forcing other suppliers out of the market.

It does... but when you continuously moan and groan about "heavy regulation" that's not primarily what you are complaining about, is it?

[Gomer]

I dont think I supported abolishing it. I think we just need a different way of rewarding inventors for their inventions rather than granting them an eternal monopoly on whatever they invent.

They aren't eternal. In this instance, it's seven years.

You'd like to abolish the FDA though, eh?

This is part of my definition of 'heavy regulation'.

It appears any regulation is 'heavy regulation' to you.

1. Can you provide a clear, concise definition of 'heavy regulation'?
2. What's the difference between normal regulation and 'heavy regulation'?
3. How does what is essentially the granting of a patent constitute 'heavy regulation'?

[Gomer]

Not completely. They should have the power to pull drugs from the market if they are found to be harmful, and they should ensure drugs don't cause harm.

But they should not be in charge of determining whether the drugs work or not.

Why not? You think it's better for cancer patients to die because the snake oil they were ingesting had no effect? Advertising and marketing driving the sale of meds is bad enough as it is... it'll be 100 times worse if manufacturers don't have to prove their meds work... just convince them that it does.

We did this experiment before. It failed.

You are aware aren't you... that seperate of the FDA granting the patent, that the government did studies showing this drug was safe... with no impact on the cost of it?

Once regulations drive the price up of a product over 1000%+ of what it costs to make it, I consider it to be heavily regulated.

Since you failed to answer the questions, I am left to having to make assumptions... I assume then... that you consider the granting of patents to be 'heavy regulation'?

Regulations didn't drive the price up... Price gouging did.

Why are you incapable of answering simple questions in rational, non-hostile discussion?

[Gomer]

The free market can deal with snake oil. Imagine a consumer reports, for medications.

What's worse? Snake oil, or life saving drugs costing 100 times more?

We allowed snake oil up until a hundred years ago. What was the life expectancy then? What is it now? We tried your experiment. It was a failure.

And how are they able to price gouge? Regulations made it illegal to compete with them, giving them a monopoly. Tell me what happens if they try and price gouge when there is competition?

Again:
Since you failed to answer the questions, I am left to having to make assumptions... I assume then... that you consider the granting of patents to be 'heavy regulation'?

Regulations didn't drive the price up... Price gouging did.

Why are you incapable of answering simple questions in rational, non-hostile discussion?

It appears your primary beef is the granting of a patent here.

[Gomer]

How was the elimination a snake oil part of that equation? Snake oil didn't do anything.

People were taking it to treat illness under the impression that it did do something. They did not get better... and frequently got worse as a result of the alcohol and opium that was in many of the magic elixirs.

Can you understand how taking a medicine that claims to have an effect on an illness can have a deleterious effect on one's health when in reality it is doing nothing at all?

Explain how life expectancy rose even for those people who don't have access to medications.

It's an average. This isn't rocket science.

[Gomer]

It appears any regulation is 'heavy regulation' to you.

1. Can you provide a clear, concise definition of 'heavy regulation'?
2. What's the difference between normal regulation and 'heavy regulation'?
3. How does what is essentially the granting of a patent constitute 'heavy regulation'?

Again:
Since you failed to answer the questions, I am left to having to make assumptions... I assume then... that you consider the granting of patents to be 'heavy regulation'?

Regulations didn't drive the price up... Price gouging did.

Why are you incapable of answering simple questions in rational, non-hostile discussion?

It appears your primary beef is the granting of a patent here.

[osprey4]

To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years.

I actually had a progesterone project early in my career but it was dropped for lack of commercial viability.

[Gomer]

hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research

Yes... But at $30,000 per patient, with 20,000 to 130,000 patients per year (per the article), that's 600 million to 4 billion per year. The patent runs for 7 years... That's $4 billion to $28 billion over the life of the patent.

"Additional research" doesn't look like the reason for the increase in cost.

(but think of all the jobs it has created!)

[Epidemic]

We allowed snake oil up until a hundred years ago. What was the life expectancy then? What is it now? We tried your experiment. It was a failure.

Again:
Since you failed to answer the questions, I am left to having to make assumptions... I assume then... that you consider the granting of patents to be 'heavy regulation'?

Regulations didn't drive the price up... Price gouging did.

Why are you incapable of answering simple questions in rational, non-hostile discussion?

It appears your primary beef is the granting of a patent here.

I don't know what was the life expectancy back then.


I quess the question really is how many people died due to snake oil sales alone.


a 19th century lifestyle was more dangerous than ours of today.

I think our life expectency has not really increased that much if you eliminate benefits of Vaccination, antibiotics, and elimination hazzard we are exposed to in our daily lives.

The last 30 days of health care is where all the money is wasted. We need death pannels.

[Gomer]

I agree that it sucks, but my argument is that the cure which is government regulation, is worse than the disease.

I know that's your argument. But you haven't supported it. The "disease" was what caused the government regulation to come into existence.

Back then it was harder for a consumer reporting agency to exist, if this happened again people would quickly be able to find out what works and what doesn't work.

No. It wasn't more difficult for the consumer reporting agency to exist. It was the consumer reporting organizations that lead to the laws being passed and the creation of the FDA!

When you talk of these Consumer Reporting "Agencies"... You mean PRIVATE I presume.

• You expect them to run the medical trials required to prove the medical efficacy of every drug on the market?
• Who funds them?
• What product will they sell?
• How will they compete with manufacturers making millions of dollars of profit?
• How will they protect themselves against lawsuits?
• How will the consumer be ensured that the "agency" is not being influenced or is a shill of the manufacturer?
• This information, being proprietary, will not be readily shared amongst consumers, will it?

Tell me, which is worse. Snake oil, or medicine costing 100 times more than it has to?

All medicine? Or a small percentage of medicines? If it's your claim that the FDA has caused medicine to be 100 times more expensive, I'd like to see you (as usual) substantiate it!

Please explain why royalty in the middle ages lived much longer than the masses without access to government regulated medications.

A variety of reasons.

What is the extent of your knowledge of life expectancy in the middle ages?

Again... we did this experiment. The consumer reporting organizations put an end to it.
The Great American Fraud, October 7, 1905

[Gomer]

I quess the question really is how many people died due to snake oil sales alone.


a 19th century lifestyle was more dangerous than ours of today.

I think our life expectency has not really increased that much if you eliminate benefits of Vaccination, antibiotics, and elimination hazzard we are exposed to in our daily lives.

Agreed.

But it's clear that people taking "medicine" to cure illness that has no effect is not beneficial to health. Especially when these "medications" primarily consisted of alcohol, opiates, and stimulants that made them addictive.

[Epidemic]

Why is health care not simply measured by outcome of each treatment method.

Type 1 diabetes of every 100 people treated 95 live 20 years in country X
Type 1 diabetes of every 100 people treate 85 live 20 years in country Y

people with 95% blockage in coranry artery are treated and live so many years ...

Level 1 head traumas recover to self sufficiency

Cancer A B and C survival rates 5 years from diagnosis.

[osprey4]

Gomer, you missed the part about this being an "orphan drug". Do you know what that means?

[RayH]

And people don't believe me when I said regulations drive prices up to la la land.

Next thing you know, if you don't watch out, the government will be regulating to make sure drugs are effective and safe....

[Gomer]

Gomer, you missed the part about this being an "orphan drug". Do you know what that means?

I didn't miss it, it wasn't part of the discussion. And yes, I know what it means.

I don't agree that it should have been given that status and the licensing rights that go along with it. If anything, that's what we should be discussing... I'd love to see more comprehensive reporting on the matter.

Irrespective of that, I don't think that this case warrants the abolishment of the FDA. Like voogru said earlier (though he apparently was speaking of patent law), there could definitely be reforms. But by and large, we're better off with the FDA than without it.