Drugmaker Tripled the Price of a Pill as it Pursued Coronavirus Use (axios.com) 85
This month, Jaguar Health more than tripled the price of its lone FDA-approved drug, right after asking the federal government to expand the use of its drug to coronavirus patients. AmiMoJo shares a report: Jaguar Health drastically raised the price of a drug during the height of the pandemic, but executives argued the move was needed to stave off the company's collapse. Going into this year, the list price of a 60-pill bottle of Mytesi -- an antidiarrheal medication specifically for people with HIV/AIDS who are on antiretroviral drugs -- was $668.52. On April 9, Jaguar Health raised the price to $2,206.52, according to pricing data from Elsevier's Gold Standard Drug Database. On March 21, Jaguar Health asked the FDA to authorize emergency use of Mytesi for COVID-19 patients who were experiencing any diarrhea or "diarrhea associated with certain antiviral treatments" including remdesivir, among others.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
AmiMoJo: I hate the USA and have no desire to ever go there, but the USA MUST create more regulations because capitalists are ruining the world.
Right as the delta formation of regulatory capture SR-71s zooms over his head at mach 2, flattening him into a pancake with the combined wavefronts.
Nice (Score:2)
Good thing there was an emergency bill passed in my country which prevented exactly this type of behaviour. And LOADS of fines have been issued since, too. Not just pharmaceuticals, groceries and fuel too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, good for you, here in America we love our corrupt too much to get rid of them. We only give a shit when the "other" team is being corrupt... it's more than fine if our team is fucking us over... so long as they regurgitate the necessary rhetoric we like to hear in the process.
You can totally fuck the shit out of us so long as you make it clear those others are getting fucked worse! We love a good fucking and will vote for it every election, a much as possible!
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your sarcasm and you make good points. However, iirc, in the US it's illegal to raise a price of anything deemed necessary, in a crisis, more than 10%. So hopefully this will get fixed and the company fined youge. (that's supposed to be "huge" spoken in a Trump accent)
Re: (Score:2)
Har-de-har har.
Maybe, after the Orange Psycho's out of office (and in jail), a real AG will sue, but shareholders shouldn't worry - I'm sure the fine won't be more than couch change to the company.
Re: (Score:2)
"in the US it's illegal to raise a price of anything deemed necessary, in a crisis, more than 10%"
That's such a bad statement and so easy to get around. See below..
Define "deemed necessary" legally
Define crisis? When does it start and end legally?
Where does the 10% rate start? For how long? What if the components have gone up 100%? This rule could force the manufacturer/reseller to sell at a loss or just stop making/selling a product.
What if a crisis lasts years. Can the price not raise more than 10% for th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are right, but remember what I said.... the corruption in place will only react when it suits their interests. If putting a stop to the price gouging is of interest they will do it. And yes we do have some of that taking place right now. But we already know that there has been a lot more focus on the hoarders.
They have been physically taking products from them which is wrong and unconstitutional. They just need to tell them 10% is all you can charge and for every product you sell over 10% markup
Re: (Score:2)
in the US it's illegal to raise a price of anything deemed necessary, in a crisis, more than 10%.
Citation needed.
Some individual states have laws against "gouging" but I know of no federal law. I have a hard time seeing how such a law could be constitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
People really struggle to understand exponential growth, even when it is in their news feed every day.
Re: Nice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Patents undermine the free market and should be abolished.
Re:This is free market capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are monopolies.
Patents undermine the free market
Both statements are true, but
and should be abolished.
There needs to be some middle ground here.
Yes, patents are monopolies, by definition, and monopolies tend to damage the free market. On the other hand, what a patent does is to pay an inventor for their invention, and paying people for their work is an essential aspect of a functioning market economy.
So we need a system where people do get paid for their creativity and effort, but doesn't allow monopoly power to drive prices to the point where people die (or even go bankrupt) from inability to buy drugs.
This is not necessarily easy-- there are some judgment calls needed here-- but one thing is true: simplistic solutions like "abolish patents!" and "keep patents and let the market work it out!" are too simplistic, and simplistic solutions are usually wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been skeptical of the "patents pay for research" argument.
Any product simplistic enough that first-to-market isn't any advantage is probably not deserving of a patent under the concept obviousness.
Non-obvious products which are complex to manufacture seem inherently protected by their production complexity, preserving a major first-to-market advantage.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"I've always been skeptical of the "patents pay for research" argument."
Because it is bunk. The best lies are ones that are based on the truth. There are definitely some businesses that will never do research on drugs because they could not patent them true... but those are also the folks you don't want to let have patents. IP Laws are solutions in search of non-existent problems. Or lets just say fors problems that already has solutions, except if you are lazy.
The formation of Government is express for
Re: (Score:3)
This depends a lot. Certainly IP law has become quite corrupt, but there is a legitimate purpose behind it.
As for protection....patents were suppose to reveal sufficient detail that anyone "skilled in the art" could reproduce the patented item. Since they don't, they should be abolished.
As for copyrights...if something is easily copied, it's reasonable that the creator should receive a monopoly for a limited period of time. Say 10 years. But different things have different up front costs of creation...s
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are very peculiar balances each concept needs, but they are not as difficult as people make them out to be.
Trademarks should live as long as the business that rightfully owns them in producing products.
Copyrights/Patents should live as long as it takes for a minimum financial threshold to be crossed and not time based on my opinion.
I have no problem with the idea of a short monopoly, but I recognize this as one of Socialism's good ideas. It gets bad when we let corruption extend their rights and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You get way too many unintended consequences. Let me give you an example. I know a guy who got involved with a group which was hard right, ultra nationalist with all kinds of racist overtones. He's since come to his senses and left the group but while he was with them he wrote quite a bit of material - some of which was made available for sale in various forms. Some of it was quite compelling providing you didn't do a thorough fact check or push some of the logic too hard. He no longer
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always been skeptical of the "patents pay for research" argument.
And you should be, but that doesn't make it completely wrong. Again, this is a "simplistic solutions are usually wrong" situatiuon.
Abolishing patents would cause problems for non-government-funded research. But that doesn't mean that the current patent regime is good for research either; there are a lot more options than "burn it all down" and "change nothing". Shortening patent durations could help; some regulations on the prices you can charge could help; requiring companies to abide by various regulat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Apple and Microsoft have collectively spent billions buying out competitors delivering what amount to complementary features to existing products those behemoths lacked the agility or market pressure to develop themselves.
Besides, the only way those two could beat you to market is with a software solution and knowing what your novel idea is before you reach market. For novel hardware? That's a lot of R&D in replicating an existing product.
It's almost impossible to even evaluate the market for
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely agree. Not sure how to implement, but especially anything life-saving needs to be reasonably priced.
Of course, that brings into question: what is "reasonable"?
Re: (Score:2)
We go back to what IP laws were originally meant for.
First to market advantage. Short time frames... no lengthy time frames and no ability for non-humans to possess patents... like trusts, groups, or corporations. Multiple people can own the same patent but they cannot own it as a group. Something like this would fix the vast majority of the problems.
No more patent trolls and patent collectors as middlemen with fat wallets and economic rape on the brain!
Re: (Score:2)
"what a patent does is to pay an inventor for their invention"
wrong
The patent serves a simple purpose: it is to prevent others from using the invention. There is no promise of fame or fortune. The vast majority of patents cost far more than they earn. They are text & pictures that never take solid form. The rare invention that has value can be part of a marketable product, or it can be licensed to others, or you can just sit on it and assure that no competitor will use it against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are, and are products of Socialism, not Capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes they are, and are products of Socialism, not Capitalism.
Patents were granted in Ancient Greece, the Venetian republic, a hub of medieval capitalism, was systematically issuing patents in the 15th century. Hint, that's several centuries before 'socialism' was even a concept. Try doing some basic research before launching one your political drive-by trolling escapades.
Re: (Score:2)
Something does not have to have a concept exist before it for it to be what it is. Did cavemen call themselves humans before? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but they where still human by current classification.
So it does not matter if Ancient Societies did not have our exact classifications for things... because they still apply just fine.
Socialism is about "control of others" by a group or government. It's right there in the definition. And IP laws are exactly for this express purpose and NO OTHER!
Re: (Score:2)
And IP laws are exactly for this express purpose and NO OTHER!
And this is why you should learn about something at more than a middle-school level before posting online.
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion that socialism and capitalism are about control say more about you than about the things you are discussing. While it is true that any concept of ownership implies, to a degree, discussing the right to control something, it's rarely an absolute. And socialism and capitalism are not opposites.
You cannot have capitalism without a society that encourages it, any more than you can have socialism without a society that encourages it. Both are outgrowths of the organization of society. They are
Re: (Score:2)
Something does not have to have a concept exist before it for it to be what it is. Did cavemen call themselves humans before? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but they where still human by current classification.
So it does not matter if Ancient Societies did not have our exact classifications for things... because they still apply just fine.
Socialism is about "control of others" by a group or government. It's right there in the definition. And IP laws are exactly for this express purpose and NO OTHER!
Capitalism is about "personal control/property" that others don't get to have. And you cannot control other people ideas or thoughts. In Capitalism... IP laws are "Trade Secrets" once your secret is out... then you either have outperform your competition in service or product to stay in business.
But in socialism... all you need to do is pay off a government official or agency to be economically viable... gee, I wonder which model we have occurring today?
It's almost as if we have long destroyed free-market capitalism... but like the employee that recently left.. we blame everything on it!
How about you go and do that research instead!
See, I did go and do some research, which is how I found out that the modern patent system has its roots in the arch-capitalist 15th century Venetian Republic.
Re: This is free market capitalism (Score:2)
Mr Astray never has understood those words,
You are just saying you don't like it, we know.
Re: (Score:2)
I am afraid you don't know jack shit about what you just said.
I like socialism just fine and I like capitalism just fine. Like all ISM's each has a good place in society and as long we take each "ism's" best attributes and use them to mitigate the worse attributes of each "ism" then we will be good.
The problem comes down to morons like you misrepresenting them and calling things what they are not to press an ignorant and moronic agenda. So get the definitions right and I will bitch at folks less. Sound g
Re: (Score:2)
Sir Moron,
US Constitution, Article 1, section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
So if you don't like any patents, feel free to *LEAVE*.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is free market capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be able to charge whatever they want. If you do not agree that the product is worth the price, you simply find and purchase an alternative. Because of the nature of the markets and competition, you will have other options. Hell, go to the store and buy some Pepto or Immodium. I don't understand why everyone gets their undies all in a bunch when companies adjust their pricing for market conditions. If it's out of line, their sales will tank and they will go out of business. This is a feature, not a bug.
People are in need prescription-grade antidiarrheal medication to fight a deadly virus, and your recommendation is to stop bitching and pick up some Pepto at the local gas station?
Thank you for not helping worth a shit here, and for confirming why we shouldn't listen to people who couldn't even play a doctor on reality TV.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with capitalism, dipshit!
The problem you just described is something else entirely. We like to call them tyrants, assholes, and fuckwads... people that do not care.
that is what you are talking about... People that do not care... and this is a problem no matter which "ism" you are on a binge about! Socialism cares just as much about you as Capitalism does. Like everything else... its the people in them that count or matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and if it's true that the company won't survive with normal prices then they go out of business and all those aids infected people shit themselves to death. you think that's fine?
Re: (Score:2)
if it's true that the company won't survive with normal prices then they go out of business and all those aids infected people shit themselves to death. you think that's fine?
No, you fucking moron, The US Gov't does something sensible, like taking over the company, merging it into the NIH, and keeping the production line running. How hard is it for you pseudoLibertarians to understand there are more options than simply "rape the market" vs. "go out of business" ?
Re: (Score:2)
"How hard is it for you pseudoLibertarians to understand there are more options than simply "rape the market" vs. "go out of business" ?"
I think that stems from the other sides doing the exact same false dichotomy for everything else that becomes political.
You are only allowed one of 2 choices and to hell with you if you choose neither and come up with one of your own. The worse is trying to correct everyone's ignorance... an impossible task but something that has to be done to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, they are not competent to run a pharmy company. That's why it's never been done.
And I never claimed to be libertarian you moron, don't bring up labels lie a 3 year old in lieu of argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Go eat a nice Jewish Cheese Cake. That will fix your diarrhea straight away!
Re: (Score:1)
"People are in need prescription-grade antidiarrheal medication to fight a deadly virus, and your recommendation is to stop bitching and pick up some Pepto at the local gas station?"
Almost all of the current anti-diarrheal medication that is OTC now once required a prescription. Go to the fucking gas station and pick some the fuck up. Literally you can buy a fucking opiate derivative directly on the open USA market to stop you from shitting everywhere, no goddamned doctor needed.
Re:This is free market capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
They should be able to charge whatever they want. If you do not agree that the product is worth the price, you simply find and purchase an alternative.
1. The only reason other companies cannot create the drug is because of their patent-enabled monopoly. The government is protecting this monopoly, which comes with strings attached.
2. Those same governments protecting their monopoly have significant capability to regulate their pricing and fine them for behavior such as this. Many governments tend to be very pro-corporation on this matter, but there are others which are more pro-consumer.
3. In a situation like this pandemic, nearly all countries will be very pro-consumer. Forcing the company to allow other companies to manufacture it for greater volume, lowering their licensing costs so the taxpayers are not impacted too significantly, etc. And the government gets to decide what is too significant, well with the help of lawyers on each side I'm sure.
4. If they want to be treated well by the government if their drug does end up being needed during this pandemic, this is not a good way to build PR.
Re:This is free market capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "free market" when the consumer either buys the product or dies if he does not buy the product. The consumer no longer has any choice, and even less when the product on which his life depends is made by a single manufacturer who can demand whatever price he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
This is fairly spot on... there is definitely no free-market here. Just Socialist-Capitalism.
Far too many people think that Capitalism and Free-Market are married. They are not. You can have a Socialist Free-Market and a Capitalist Free-Market. We really have a varying mix of these all over the place.
The more regulated an industry is, the less free-market capitalist is becomes... that is the definition of socialism... greater controls by a group. And yes, there is a middle ground somewhere in all of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whats's wrong with Imodium or Pepto? (Score:2)
It's a msmash article. Fear mongering, inaccurate information and fake news are just the tools used to incite FUD and rally the voters into changing the very foundations of the free world and regressing it to a feudal dictatorship.
I'm surprised msmash hasn't yet posted the NYT article about COVID crisis being the example on how to fix climate change and extending lockdowns until 2050 to fix pollution.
Yes it is more nuanced (Score:2)
the gist is that the increase was decided months ago, December 2019, and jaguar health seem in bad financial straits, so it does not seem to be a gougy company wanting to pad investor profit... just one trying to push up price to survive. Now with so many thing at key, it would have been a much better PR to ask for a financial help and in exchange push the increase for later. Just sayin'. Firm tend to only see the bottom line and forget they are in a society and should par
Re: (Score:2)
I submitted this one. What is inaccurate about it? Are you saying they didn't triple the price after it started being used for COVID patients? Did you check the sources in TFA?
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume that for the patients that are prescribed this medicine OTC diarrhea medication isn't strong enough. If it was there wouldn't be any market of the drug and increasing the price wouldn't be a problem since the drug wouldn't be on the market.
Gasp! Raising prices? Evil. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"raising prices with high demand"
-1, offtopic
Demand hadn't risen. The manufacturer was trying to induce more demand, but neither demand nor supply had changed yet so there was no reason for the market clearing price to change.
profiteering (Score:2)
According to our pols, we are in a "war". I heard in WW2, profiteering was severally punished. I guess in this "war" profiteering is now allowed ? Why not, something needs to make up the losses in the stock market for the 1%.
But as always, I guess it depends on who is doing the profiteering
Re: (Score:2)
In WWII, the Press was severely restricted, stories censored, information withheld.
Re: (Score:2)
"profiteering" is bad but if price needs to be changed for financial survival of a company (if true in this case, I don't know) that's fine. Companies can't have costs more than what they make.
Production (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People will pay almost anything to avoid dying of diarrhoea. Even if it's illegal it will take so long to prosecute and the fine will be so pathetic they might as well do it anyway.
Or we could just order them too (Score:2)
Or if you don't like that the government can just manufacture it themselves.
But sure, let's do profiteering. Because that works. I'm sure the company
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturer was trying to induce more demand. That tells us that their production capacity was already in excess of current demand or else they could not have hoped to have satisfied an increase in demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just stop calling them homo sapiens? (Score:2)
And start calling them Ferengi?
Maybe homo ferengis?
Meaning they still have rights (so no revenge please),
but they don't belong in human society (and can go live somewhere else, and make their own [predictably short-lived] society)!
Re: (Score:2)
There Ferengi homeworld was a perfect satire of the USA. Standing in the waiting room is free but a chair will cost you. Same thing with stairs and the elevator.
Bottle of Dragon's Blood for $10 (Score:2)
You can buy a bottle of herbal dragon's blood for $10 which contains this $2000 chemical cocktail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sounds like this stuff has been in use for thousands of years
at least it cuts down on hoarding (Score:2)
Also, the people who took the initiative for helping people are rewarded.
Hisghschool Econ At Work (Score:1)
Fuck 'em. Let the company go under. (Score:2)
Pandemic entrepreneur (Score:1)
Stating the Obvious (Score:2)
For all the Presidential candidates who are promising " Universal Health Care ", this is the kind of shit that will need to be fully regulated before UHC has a chance to become a reality.
As long as you allow Big Pharma and Big Healthcare to set their own prices without any sort of reality check or cap in place, there is no way we'll ever be able to afford it.
Annnnnnnnnd . . . .
Since both industries shovel piles of money into the pockets of elected leadership in this country, the odds of ever getting UHC are
Take it all (Score:2)
Seize their patents, yachts, chatous, vacation homes, hotels, bank accounts, and everything else they own. After you've taken it all, drag them to the middle of the square and finish them off with a guillotine! Show them what should be done with war/crisis profiteers!
And This Shit... (Score:1)
...is why the powers that be are trying to nuke hydroxychloroquine via the useful idiots on the left that use the excuse that Trump mentioned it to lie their asses off about it and clear the way for some big pharma puke to usher something onto the stage that costs $100 / pill. Plain as the nose on your face...
ok (Score:1)