The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: BannedFromDU on March 19, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
-
theboss (9,413 posts)
Should Multiple Sclerosis Drugs Cost $62,000 a Year
(This may be overkill, but I find this discussion a lot more enlightening than a post about Victoria Jackson).
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/ms-why-are-ms-drug-prices-so-high-071913
For those who suffer from multiple sclerosis (MS), perhaps the only thing more shocking than receiving their diagnosis is learning how much the disease modifying drugs (DMDs) used to control it will cost. Patient demand, research and development costs, and competition all affect the pricing of these life-altering medications.
MS is a chronic, progressive, and often debilitating autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves. More than 400,000 people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with MS, while worldwide that number is in excess of 2.1 million.
The first MS DMD to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was Betaseron, which came on the market in 1993. Drug makers predicted there would be such a high demand for the product that it was initially prescribed by lottery. Only one in five patients who applied received it.
Since then, nine other DMDs have joined the ranks of medications proven effective at reducing the number of relapses an MS patient suffers. Some have even been shown to slow the disease progression. With no cure in sight, many patients must take these medications indefinitely.
The fact that there are so many options available to patients is the good news; the bad news is that they all come with a substantial price tag. The chart below shows today's drug prices, as quoted by Walmart and Walgreen’s pharmacies in northeast Florida.
(I can't get the chart to post, but the average 30 day supply of pretty much every drug is $5K).
I don't see why they need MULTIPLE Sclerosis in the first place. Why isn't one enough? /nads (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024691998)
Notice how the DUmmy casually forgets to post anything relating to cost of development, marketing, and distribution.
Face it, DUmmies: if you think you need it, whatever it is, you think it should be free. The world doesn't work that way.
-
hamsterjill (5,019 posts)
8. No, no one should get rich off of someone else's suffering.
Tree falls on my house, I have the elements coming in, I'm suffering. The tree guy should cut the rest of the tree down and remove the broken part off of my home for free. The carpenter and roofers should also work for free. The lumber mill that provides the lumber should give it away for free.
My paid off car, with only liability, hits an ice patch. I hit a pole. I take it to the body shop. I can't get to work. I'm suffering. The guys there should fix it for free. The parts place should also give them away for free. The people that made the parts should also provide them for free.
How far do you DUmbasses want to go with this?
-
DUmmies think that magical fairies create all of these products without even a clue how much money companies spend on research and development.
-
DUmmies think that magical fairies create all of these products without even a clue how much money companies spend on research and development.
Maybe if we lied and said that George Soros owned the only company that made MS drugs. God knows they give him a pass on making ANY amount of money.
-
Lurking DUmbasses,I know it is a waste of time but a little business lesson.
Watch the show sometime called "How its Made".
You will see pencils that sell for pennies being made by machines that cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
How can that be?
Volume of sales is the answer...every expense of a factory from tooling to labor to tax/regulatory compliance is figured out.
That sets a base for what virtually every square foot has to generate given expected sales to meet those costs.
In short part of what you pay for any product goes towards the packaging,transportation and raw production without even getting into liabilities and research/development.
A drug may take years and millions of dollars to bring to market,it does not happen at a whim.
People have to live and prosper while working on that so current drug sales are paying those costs plus parts of ongoing development of new medications all of which come with an expected failure rate of zero.
Useless moochers.
-
The DUmmies neglect one big important part of the price. Supply and demand. 400K out of a population of @350M is only around 1/10 of 1%.
The market is relatively small for the drugs, so the price has to be kept high to make any profit.
Aspirin, Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen are cheap because millions of people buy them everyday.
Maybe that's why some people with AIDS are trying to spread their disease. They want to drive more development and drive costs down.
-
The DUmmies neglect one big important part of the price. Supply and demand. 400K out of a population of @350M is only around 1/10 of 1%.
The market is relatively small for the drugs, so the price has to be kept high to make any profit.
Aspirin, Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen are cheap because millions of people buy them everyday.
Maybe that's why some people with AIDS are trying to spread their disease. They want to drive more development and drive costs down.
That, and a couple of other points:
- Ongoing R&D expense is probably substantial, and the price of drugs may include the hung expense of drugs that didn't pan out. If there's no CURE for it, they're TRYING to cure it, and that is expensive. It requires capital. A return on capital is required for the capital to keep flowing,
which in turn keeps people alive with the drug. DUmmies think a drug is a simple matter of a little of this and a little of that, and you store
it in a brown bottle and every month you shake a little out and send it via mail. That's how your STASH works, DUmmies, not real pharmaceuticals. - Perhaps more importantly: why shouldn't pharmas make a lot of money? It encourages investment, which throws off my drugs. You want the
government to own pharma? Those chuckleheads can't even pass a budget! I don't care if pharmas make 20 cents on the dollar, because
they come up with better solutions for health than your insipid bullshitting "healing white light."
-
you store
it in a brown bottle and every month you shake a little out and send it via mail.
That is a whole other problem. Drugs have limited shelf life and have to be made to meet the current demand and not stocked in supply like other products.
-
bravenak (3,132 posts)
1. No.
I have to say no. They should not cost so much. You can buy a whole house in some places for that.
There has to be a way to fix those prices. Government funded or run drug companies?
Yeah because government money always keeps costs down.
Is there ever a bottom to their well of stupidity?
-
Yeah because government money always keeps costs down.
Is there ever a bottom to their well of stupidity?
They seem to know all there is to know about the hard sciences. I'm surprised the DUmmies haven't banded together to make their own
pharma collective and hospital. That, or simply prescribe weed. They think weed cures everything, don't they?
-
steve2470 (19,111 posts)
22. Whatever is the actual cost of producing the drug plus 10% profit
If we go the democratic socialist route, then it would be the actual cost of production.
Says a person with no business experience other then renting porn.
-
They seem to know all there is to know about the hard sciences. I'm surprised the DUmmies haven't banded together to make their own
pharma collective and hospital. That, or simply prescribe weed. They think weed cures everything, don't they?
I suppose getting stoned every day makes dying easier so there is that.
Perhaps free weed to DUmbasses that are sick,then they won`t seek free health care for what ails them! :hyper:
-
I'm selling 4 oz. bottles of healing white light for just 4 easy payments of $39.99. This week only, order 2 bottles of healing white light and get the second bottle for just 4 easy payments of $39.99. Every Obamacare medicine cabinet is required to have at least one 4 oz. bottle of healing white light so stock up now and take advantage of this great one time offer.
Side effects: No known side effects have occurred when used as prescribed.
-
Well, anything that distresses DUmpmonkey Pitt is okay by me.
The more a DUmmy suffers, the more entertaining he becomes.
But I think the DUmmies and their sympathizers are missing the boat here.
The medication Pitt's enraged about is weed.
He just needs to sign up for the same coverage as the bald fizzy DUmmy:
i smoke a bowl, maybe two, after work and it smooths out the edges the meds miss.
-
That, and a couple of other points:
- Ongoing R&D expense is probably substantial, and the price of drugs may include the hung expense of drugs that didn't pan out. If there's no CURE for it, they're TRYING to cure it, and that is expensive. It requires capital. A return on capital is required for the capital to keep flowing,
which in turn keeps people alive with the drug. DUmmies think a drug is a simple matter of a little of this and a little of that, and you store
it in a brown bottle and every month you shake a little out and send it via mail. That's how your STASH works, DUmmies, not real pharmaceuticals. - Perhaps more importantly: why shouldn't pharmas make a lot of money? It encourages investment, which throws off my drugs. You want the
government to own pharma? Those chuckleheads can't even pass a budget! I don't care if pharmas make 20 cents on the dollar, because
they come up with better solutions for health than your insipid bullshitting "healing white light."
Not to mention that a drug company really only has 12 years to recoup their costs, and then generics can be produced.
-
Yeah because government money always keeps costs down.
Is there ever a bottom to their well of stupidity?
No. Just the other day they were bitching about how high heavily-funded government tuition was. Stupid people don't know they're stupid, and they can't claim ignorance; the studies are abundant.
-
hamsterjill (5,019 posts)
8. No, no one should get rich off of someone else's suffering.
And yet we have the boy king and Chicago's version of Marie Antoinette doing just that. We don't even get to eat cake unless it's made with applesauce and broccoli.
Cindie