Could they make less, sure. My guess is you could also give some of your salary back too. Very few Americans would think of doing this. Does a union worker have to make $100,000 a year in a mill? Does a teacher have to make $80,000+? The answers are all obviously no. This is a tough situation, but pharma companies are in a tough bind. It costs hundreds of millions or more to go through the process of developing a new drug and going through the insanely complicated and costly regulatory process to sell. They then have a relatively short period of patent protection where they need to recover their costs, make some profits, and plough some of that back into the next drug--in addition to paying all their employees good salaries with benefits. Mylan is merely making as much as it can, while it can, as it works on other drugs and systems of delivery that will benefit consumers. All the while, that very same pharma company spends millions of dollars defending stupid law suits from consumers over the very same product. Heck, there is a company in Pittsburgh that sells only over the counter pharma products that have been on the market for years--and they must spend millions of dollars in legal fees defending these stupid consumer law suits, etc. There are plenty of problems with the system...but the simplistic "they could make less" is not likely the answer. Hail to Pitt!
OT: Mylan defending EPI-Pen 400% price increase.....
- Thread starter pitt-girl
- Start date
Could they make less, sure. My guess is you could also give some of your salary back too. Very few Americans would think of doing this. Does a union worker have to make $100,000 a year in a mill? Does a teacher have to make $80,000+? The answers are all obviously no. This is a tough situation, but pharma companies are in a tough bind. It costs hundreds of millions or more to go through the process of developing a new drug and going through the insanely complicated and costly regulatory process to sell. They then have a relatively short period of patent protection where they need to recover their costs, make some profits, and plough some of that back into the next drug--in addition to paying all their employees good salaries with benefits. Mylan is merely making as much as it can, while it can, as it works on other drugs and systems of delivery that will benefit consumers. All the while, that very same pharma company spends millions of dollars defending stupid law suits from consumers over the very same product. Heck, there is a company in Pittsburgh that sells only over the counter pharma products that have been on the market for years--and they must spend millions of dollars in legal fees defending these stupid consumer law suits, etc. There are plenty of problems with the system...but the simplistic "they could make less" is not likely the answer. Hail to Pitt!
Well.... honestly good! They should be well compensated if they are making good products Do you know how many 1000 dollar bonus it would take to equal the CEO's 10 million dollar pay raise? 10,000 of them. Happy line operator, as long as you have good supervisors that keep them from getting complacent, are what makes the margins for yields and guard against faulty product.
Sorry.. six sigma black belt guy here.
Sorry.. six sigma black belt guy here.
Then why are drugs so much cheaper in every other country, even though most of them have higher taxes and much more regulation than we do?
I'm fine with taking all the subsidies away and flattening the price for everyone. It will cut world sales in half and eliminate jobs but I'm fine with it.
We're not talking subsidies. You can buy non-subsidized drugs from Canada for much cheaper than in the U.S. If the pharmaceutical companies were losing money, they wouldn't sell the drugs in those countries. They are making money in Canada, England, etc., they just make MUCH, MUCH more here in the U.S.
I should have said " creating economies of scale by not making much profit overseas".
"No one's more frustrated than me," Bresch said
Change "frustrated" to "compensated," and its makes sense
It appears that this fake MBA, politically-connected empty husk of a person has probably made upwards of 100 million
from a generic drug manufacturer whose most profitable product is the Epi-pen.
No wonder she's "frustrated."
Change "frustrated" to "compensated," and its makes sense
It appears that this fake MBA, politically-connected empty husk of a person has probably made upwards of 100 million
from a generic drug manufacturer whose most profitable product is the Epi-pen.
No wonder she's "frustrated."
Well a big part of it is the way insurance companies pay for the drugs. In countries where healthcare is provided by the government--they can "regulate" the price of a drug by how much they are willing to reimburse for it, etc. A lot of countries do not permit, let alone provide for, thousands of law suits from consumers against they drug companies. It is likely that some of the foreign markets where these drugs are on sale, they [pharma companies] are barely breaking even--and the U.S. market "subsidizes" their ability to sell there. That can be said for other products that are of a non-pharma nature too. No simple solutions to the problem. There is a reason that many rare diseases have no cure or drugs--there simply is no profit in attempting to cure them--so no drug company is even attempting to find a cure/therapy. Reality is not always nice. Hail to Pitt!
.
The last part of this is particularly true and quite unfortunate. And the rarer the disease/issue the less likely there will ever be a cure.
I agree. That's a situation where the big, bad evil government needs to fund research. Sometimes profit motive isn't enough.
Seniors getting drug coverage....Medicare Part D.....had more to do with it.
That, and Canada likely started enforcing their laws more strictly.
Interestingly, generics in the US are generally cheaper than in Canada. Guess what happened when Canadian citizens tried to bring them into Canada? You guess it, they were stopped. Canada prohibits the importation of meds from other countries also.
The issue is people's health being treated as a for-profit commodity.
Good discussion of the real problem.
https://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/want-to-reduce-the-price-of-epipens-appr
https://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/want-to-reduce-the-price-of-epipens-appr
Last edited:
Well avoid allergens and you will never need an Epi-pen. The drug is widely available everywhere and cheap...want the convenience of having it in a self-injectable "pen," then you can buy Mylan's product or that of one of their competitors. The healthcare industry, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, drug companies, supply companies, and their employers are all in the business to make money--that is how it has been since day 1 in the United States. Want to change the system....? Good luck. By the way, I am personally very allergic to bee stings--and I avoid bees. If I get stung by one by accident, and it has happened twice in my lifetime, I go to a medical facility and get an injection. Not that big a deal. Hail to Pitt!
The number of people who insist the NIH and CDC shouldn't exist that I've had to explain the above to is not zero.
Well without revealing too much about myself since I'm not a self-congratulatory back-slapper like you, lets just say that not everyone can see their allergens (nor a severe asthma attack that doesn't even require allergy antigens to invade). Nor do they always know what they're allergic to since allergies can develop over time. Magnitude of rxns to bee stings and other antigen also varies from patient to patient just like how some people can handle the flu and some can't.
Apparently bees aren't the only thing you're allergic too. Science is another one.
Well if you have allergies and have not been tested or seen an allergist, pretty irresponsible. But you miss the point, the Epi-Pen is for convenience--and is not the only one on the market. There are other options for anyone that does not want to pay for one, albeit less convenient. The irony of this is that practically nobody is paying for the "pens" directly, as it is covered under their insurance--they merely pay for the co-pay, provided they have one. Additionally, Mylan [like other drug companies] has been offering a coupon which essentially wipes out your co-pay for quite some time. I'm not allergic to science at all--get an Adrenaclick if you find the Epi-Pen too expensive. Or perhaps write your Congressman about the pathetic FDA that has turned down multiple alternatives to the Epi-Pen. Competition will make things better, not more regulation and red tape. Hail to Pitt!
You don't always know you're allergic. There are people who have eaten seafood for years with no issue then suddenly they're allergic. And not everyone who is allergic has the luxury of going to a medical facility due to time constraints. Good for you Pittlaw that yours isn't that serious but some people who have allergies need it treated immediately.
I'm not arguing some of the other things you've stated but some of what you said isn't quite so simple. You're of course 100% correct in needing more competition.
I'm not arguing some of the other things you've stated but some of what you said isn't quite so simple. You're of course 100% correct in needing more competition.
That's true, but Mylan doesn't develop new pharmaceuticals. They are a generics company and only produce off-patent generics, at which point the safety profile is also fairly well established. They incur little risk.
At least, I'm not familiar with any drug they've actual developed themselves out of R&D themselves. They bought the EpiPen off of Merck in 2007.
In any case, AdrenaClick is another epipen that is like a third (or even less) of the price. Some places are selling it for under $150. Trust me people, there is no difference in the epinephrine contained in the two pens. The injection device might be different, I don't know, but if it is approved by the FDA as epinephrine injection (0.15 or 0.3 mg), and it is, there is no difference in the safety or effectiveness of the actual drug product between it and Mylan's epinephrine.
Last edited:
Well if you don't know you are allergic, why would you likely be carrying an Epi-Pen? Does not make sense. Sure, I get it that allergies change [come and go] through the stages of a persons life. But if you are so allergic that you do not have time to get to a medical facility for treatment...either buy the Epi-Pen or one of the alternatives on the market. Hail to Pitt!
That is actually not true. Most generic companies do development. Cannot reveal privileged information, but be sure, Mylan [and most generic companies that I am familiar with] do a ton of R&D for both generic versions of drugs, as well as their own products and formulations. The largest "generic drug" companies now are developing their own brands, mostly under patent, as the profit margins are far larger than just making commodity generic drugs. And yes, buying the Epi-Pen from Merck was a stroke of genius on the part of Mylan--has really helped their profitability. Hail to Pitt!
Please post one new molecular entity product they developed from R&D to market. If it is on the market, it is public information since the NDA is public. I honestly don't know if they have. I can look it up though.
Developing an ANDA (generic) is absolutely cheaper than developing a new molecular entity and it takes a fraction of the time. You just need to do bridging studies. So when they are saying they are putting the resources of development into ANDAs that are comparable to companies like Merck, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, etc, that are developing new drugs out of their own R&D, it is more than just a little disingenuous.
I have no problem with the free market system. As I added in my post above, there is another generic epi pen for less than 1/3 of the cost and all people have to do is switch. The same epinephrin is inside.
You might be hard pressed to name a unique drug they have developed that has not been through acquisition. Combining One Drug with another does not count.
You're flat wrong on this.
By definition they don't develop novel products. They reproduce therapeutic equivalents once patent exclusivity expires.
They only have to prove equivalency...not therapeutic effect.
there isn't a "holistic" treatment for anaphylaxis.
People who are sick, can't necessarily fix it with fru fru first world problem nonsense.
Of course you won't be carrying a pen if you don't know you're allergic. I wasn't as articulate as I needed to be but that was more directed towards your statement of not being tested and how it's irresponsible. The onset of symptoms can be quite sudden and very few if any people are going to be regularly tested for allergies, especially into adulthood. Unfortunately quite a few people don't know until their throat starts closing suddenly or some other less severe reaction takes place.
You mean, it won't be your own fault if someone eats a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and shakes your hand before washing their hands?
Did not claim they have a "new molecular product" on the market. Because something does not exist today, does not mean it will not tomorrow. Moreover, there are plenty of tweaks that can be made to existing products, even generics, which are eligible for patent protection. Just as nearly all name brand pharma has one or more generic companies, the generics are going the other direction too. But back to the original point of the post, pay Mylan's price for their product, or use an alternative--not so difficult or unfair. Hail to Pitt!
I use the term novel in connection with the intellectual property definition. Take a look at Mylan's patent portfolio, they have created and acquired a number of novel products. Hail to Pitt!
No, you can't make tweaks to an ANDA drug product. That would be considered a new molecular entity and require an NDA.
I just looked Mylan up in the Orange Book. They have only about 20 active NDAs out 500 products listed. All the rest are ANDAs. None of those NDAs look like they were developed there. Geeze, one of them is for DMSO.
Name brand pharmaceuticals absolutely make generics too. That isn't the point. The point is that Mylan does not do the R&D or take on any of the first to market risk of any of the "name brand" companies.
Last edited:
I can't imagine how diligent ppl who have food allergies need to be. I recall a few years ago in a coffee shop one of the employees being scolded for using the coffee carafe that was designated for nut based coffees for something else. Evidently once it's used for something that contains nuts it shouldn't be used again for anything else - they have to be that careful. Clearly some people can be set off and even killed by an extremely minute amount.
I get all that. But nobody that has this sudden allergic attack is going to be carrying a drug in any format to combat something they did not know that existed theretofore. Have that first attack, and yeah, if you do not seek medical help and counsel afterwards, you are being irresponsible. There is a reason I know what I am allergic to, and after that first attack, I sought medical advice--just like any responsible sane person would do. But back to the original point, buy the Epi-Pen or seek one of the alternatives if you do not like the pricing or have appropriate insurance coverage. Hail to Pitt!
Honestly for people with allergies.
Fortunate to not be among them.
Look at the Mylan patent portfolio [or the portion that is presently public record], they were not all acquired. By legal definition, you are not entitled to a patent unless, among other things, the invention is novel. Sorry, but you will have to admit defeat here. Hail to Pitt!
You seem to fail to acknowledge that schools, daycares, and other entities DO carry these items, for emergency needs...and are the ones being bilked.
nevermind.
Heather should have a truth serum type Epi pen with her at all times. Like if she is at a cocktail party or meeting with investors and the topic of her supposed MBA at hoopieville university comes up. Someone can just stick her with it in case she starts telling someone she really did all the credits.
