Price gouging

That's the only term for when drug companies hike prices 5000 percent. One drug went from $13.50 to $750 (no I am not missing a decinal point). Thats a big price increase. I could not believe it when I read the article.

"Although some price increases have been caused by shortages, others have resulted from a business strategy of buying old neglected drugs and turning them into high-priced “specialty drugs.”"

And its not just one drug, its several. So what happened to the old justification of the research and development costs are so high? There were no new development costs. Probably just marketing crap, once again.

The Wrong Approach to Pricing

Here is an example of the wrong approach to pricing medications. That really fancy expensive Hepatitis C drug, Sovaldi, is $1,000 per pill and $84,000 for the course of treatment and the price is justified because it saves on the cost of a liver transplant down the road and long term medical costs for the patient. WRONG IDEA!

It has now been revealed that the poor manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, which justified that price on the above reason, grossed $12.4 billion last year for the sales of Sovaldi alone. Sorry Gilead, I have absolutely no sympathy for you because of the revenue generated in the first year.

Yes, I understand the argument that the expensive drugs are justified because of the resulting reduced treatment costs for the patient in the long term and that the costs of and time to developing drugs is high and many possibilities are dumped after years of work. And that these drugs are developed for smaller and smaller potential patient markets for rarer ailments. But $12.4 billion? I think you got your money back and should cut the price significantly, maybe 1/10th of the current price.

So here is my proposal for new drug pricing: Look at your development costs of that drug that made it to market and the costs of the other drugs that eventually lead to the new drug but were dumped on the way and then price it so that your costs are recouped in five years, not one. And completely forget about the patient's long term cost savings in health costs. That is none of your business. Don't you remember HIPPA? Patient health issues are not your problem. You are providing a product that helps recover from it, just like an aspirin would relieve a headache.

Here's an example. Your current pricing method would allow restaurants to charge $3 for the tasty but bad for your juicy, fatty steak or prime rib and $80 for the  healthy side salad because of the diner's potential long term health problems from eating the steak and ensuing cholesterol and other ailment costs.

The current pricing model leads to insurance companies deciding who should receive these new  medications instead of doctors deciding what is best for their patients - which is the way medicine should be practiced.

Okay, this is all my opinion, to which I am entitled, but I really think pharma companies are doing it wrong.

A little too personal for me

Now big pharma has another 'bright idea'. They want to use fitbits in clinical trials to get more details on the impact of the medication and if it is working. However that wouldn't work for me. So it would be another way I would be excluded from potential clinical trials.

I am never eligible for clinical trials now anyway. I have too many ailments to be considered. It would be very difficult to tell the impact of a new medication because I have so many others.

Also, I can't wear fit bits. I cant put anything on my left arm because of lymphedema. This means no watches, no bracelets, and only my wedding ring, when my arm is feeling okay. And a fitbit? Absolutely not. I have problems wearing anything on my right arm because of my tennis elbow/bad wrist/everything else that is going on. No watches, bracelets either (I carry my phone to use instead of a watch).

This article talks about a 'fitbit' that would work as an adhesive patch. I am allergic to so many things these days. Last week's pain patch left a raised area on my chest from the adhesive even though I have been using anti itch lotion to help heal it. I am probably not the only person with multiple  medical issues who would have issues when wearing one of these.

Finally, I think a fitbit is a bit intrusive. Its my body and I am not sure how comfortable I feel with someone monitoring my body from afar. I would want to be the one monitoring the results and then forwarding them to the pharma company.

So a 'bright' idea by someone who is healthy.It might be easier for them, but not necessarily easier for the patients.

Oh, the poor man!

As I have said before, this is not a political blog. But I do occasionally blog about political issues. Martin Shkreli, the idiot man who raised the price of a medication 4000%, is upset with Bernie Sanders. He donated $2700 to Bernie's campaign and hoped to get a meeting with Bernie to explain why drug manufacturers set their prices.

"Shkreli made the contribution, he said, partly because he supports some of Sanders’ proposals — just not the ones about drug prices. But mainly, he said, he donated to get the senator’s attention in the hopes that he could get a private meeting to explain why drug companies set prices the way they do."

Bernie gave away his money and won't meet with him. Martin isn't happy.

"Shkreli is “furious” that Sanders is using him as a punching bag without giving him a chance to give his side. “I think it’s cheap to use one person’s action as a platform without kind of talking to that person,” Shkreli said in the interview. “He’ll take my money, but he won’t engage with me for five minutes to understand this issue better.”"

Personally, I think I catch a hint of whininess here.... I'm with Bernie on this. I don't think I would take a donation from Martin either. I think Martin should start trying to explain to the rest of us about his pricing justification instead of just waiting for a call from Bernie.