House Oversight Committee vs Mylan

pheller wrote: Sorry, you shouldn't be able to hold a patent on a glorified syringe for 20 years and a few billion.

And you get to decide this why? Who chooses what patents are ok, and what ones are not ok? What's the criteria? Cell phones save lives, no patents allowed there, cars can save lives, no patent there, etc.

The argument of "without the product, people died" is foolish. The product was brought to market because there was profit to be made, if that incentive was not there in the beginning, there would be no product, and people would be dying. You can't decide after the fact, that they're not allowed to make money because you don't like it.

Dr. Hess wrote: As I explained to a young man 10 years ago. This is how it works today: You come up with an idea, like, say, a shatter proof coating for eyeglasses, which you patent. Then you piece off the congress critters about 10-20 large each (probably less) to pass legislation that all glasses sold to children have to use your coating, you know, to save their eyes... For The Children. They pass the laws, you can then crank up the price and everyone is forced to buy your stuff. It's like we're living in an Ann Rand novel.

Except what you describe is essentially what Ayn Rand would say is good. Remember "selfishness is a virtue," and to her charity is an abomination. I've read quite a few of her books and if the world worked like she would like it to we would be in hell on earth. Mylan making a few billion on a life saving mechanism they didn't even invent is small potatoes compared to what she advocated for.

In case any of you have been living under a rock for the last 15 years, the age of symbiotic business relations is over. Quid-pro-quo is so 1900's The new standard is parasitic.

Besides, I sadly have to agree that a company can charge whatever someone can pay for their product. Why are we not outraged that a Mercedes cost $100k?

How much longer does the patent run? If I read the numbers right, 2020 is the end of the gravy train, so they better make hay before China takes over. Might explain the sole supplier to schools gambit in exchange for a better price; well played.

dculberson wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: As I explained to a young man 10 years ago. This is how it works today: You come up with an idea, like, say, a shatter proof coating for eyeglasses, which you patent. Then you piece off the congress critters about 10-20 large each (probably less) to pass legislation that all glasses sold to children have to use your coating, you know, to save their eyes... For The Children. They pass the laws, you can then crank up the price and everyone is forced to buy your stuff. It's like we're living in an Ann Rand novel.

Except what you describe is essentially what Ayn Rand would say is good. Remember "selfishness is a virtue," and to her charity is an abomination. I've read quite a few of her books and if the world worked like she would like it to we would be in hell on earth. Mylan making a few billion on a life saving mechanism they didn't even invent is small potatoes compared to what she advocated for.

She advocated taking pride in what you do and being as good as possible at it. If you did there was nothing wrong with being rewarded for it. The skill you took pride in was a skill of production of something others desired or just the production of beauty. It was distinctly not the skill of manipulating people or governments to force the people to buy your product. She used the word "selfishness" because it got your attention. It was intentional to point out the manipulation inherent in expecting others to be selfless.

Please no more ayn rand.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Please no more ayn rand.

In my best Austin Powers voice: Does she make you Rand-y?

Duke wrote:

aircooled wrote: Who's to say what a company can charge for a product? If you make a hammer holder for a Miata and sell it for $25,000, the government gets to tell you you can't? Yes, I get the immorality of it all, but that is how the free market works.

While I completely agree with you, unfortunately, we don't *have* a free market. We have crony capitalism, which is *not* free and results in bullE36 M3 like this.

Jay wrote: The easiest way to fix this little problem is to end all patenting on medicines and pharmaceuticals, immediately, without exceptions. Everybody wins except these dickbags, and the politicians they buy.

Everybody wins except the companies that invest in developing drugs and medicines and the people who work for them, you mean.

What the difference is is that no one needs a Miata hammer holder, the drugs, many, but not all are needed to live.

If my insulin manufacturer suddenly made the price increase 20 fold, and made endocrinologist sign an exclusive contract with them, and only them, I'd be dead, or resort to crime to continue living.

MDJeepGuy wrote:

pheller wrote: Sorry, you shouldn't be able to hold a patent on a glorified syringe for 20 years and a few billion.

And you get to decide this why? Who chooses what patents are ok, and what ones are not ok? What's the criteria? Cell phones save lives, no patents allowed there, cars can save lives, no patent there, etc. The argument of "without the product, people died" is foolish. The product was brought to market because there was profit to be made, if that incentive was not there in the beginning, there would be no product, and people would be dying. You can't decide after the fact, that they're not allowed to make money because you don't like it.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that a company shouldn't be allowed to profit, but gratuitously raising the price of a life saving device, only to increase your profits substantially, is unadulterated corporate greed that shouldn't go completely unchecked.

When your only choice is to overpay for something, or die, that's not much of a choice.

z31maniac wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: They're far from the only ones doing things like this, but I'm betting they end up eating E36 M3 on the whole thing. I anticipate a very low buck alternative will be approved and they lose their virtual monopoly and pretty much all profit or they get. I'd also be surprised if she survives this. They're a publicly traded company and she's doing a terrible job at the help. There are other connected people she can be replaced with.

I saw a story earlier today that a group has already come up with Epipen alternative that would cost $30ish.

Not a commercial product, but yes, get your cyberpunk/biopunk DIY healthcare items here!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ldFFJRdhVs8

dculberson wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: As I explained to a young man 10 years ago. This is how it works today: You come up with an idea, like, say, a shatter proof coating for eyeglasses, which you patent. Then you piece off the congress critters about 10-20 large each (probably less) to pass legislation that all glasses sold to children have to use your coating, you know, to save their eyes... For The Children. They pass the laws, you can then crank up the price and everyone is forced to buy your stuff. It's like we're living in an Ann Rand novel.

Except what you describe is essentially what Ayn Rand would say is good. Remember "selfishness is a virtue," and to her charity is an abomination. I've read quite a few of her books and if the world worked like she would like it to we would be in hell on earth. Mylan making a few billion on a life saving mechanism they didn't even invent is small potatoes compared to what she advocated for.

Amazing how you apparently read her books yet completely missed that she utterly loathed corruption, cronyism, and opportunistic looters like this.

A couple of problems I have is Mylan got congressional law to help them and look at the prices overseas.

Mylan bought rights to a fully developed product and started raising the price each year. Same as what that other peckerhead did with a cheap developed drug. This is becoming the new norm and its pure greed.

A low buck alternative exists. My cousin is a type 1 diabetic. He has syringes, medicine and was taught how to use them. If he waits too long he can become unable to do it for himself and die. Still, they didn't make a special applicator and take away the needles. Why isn't that same standard applied to people who have fatal allergies? For kids, a parent can stab a needle in just as easily as an epipen with 30 seconds of training. You don't need to hit a vein... just a big muscle and even if you break off the needle doing it - you are going to a hospital pronto anyhow. An EMT with pliers will fish it out. It's small beans to suffocating in your own neck.

So, why can't I just carry a small bag with a syringe and bottle for my son with a tree nut allergy? Should be about $5 worth of stuff. Or can I and it was not offered but I just need to ask?

Every insulin dependent diabetic on the planet is laughing at this whole thing.

FYI the cost of developing new drugs is getting into the Billions of dollar range and well over a decade. The time to re-verse engineer the molecule is in the months and few millions of dollars range. How do you deal with this unless you have patents?

The other thing you have to understand about patents is that in order to be valid, they must actually TEACH "those versed in the art" how to go down the same path. Pfizer actually got in trouble with the Viagara patent because they did not do this!

Pfizer's legal monopoly on one of its top-selling drugs just got shredded in Canada. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled 7-0 the company should have its patent taken away because the drug company attempted to "game" the system, grabbing a patent without disclosing what their invention really was. Pfizer was able to acquire its Canadian patent without naming the compound required to make Viagra, namely, sildenafil citrate. The Canadian patent system, like all patent systems, is a kind of bargain between patentees, who are given a limited monopoly on a particular product or process, and the public, which is supposed to benefit from the disclosure of a new invention, the justices noted in their opinion.

Duke wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: As I explained to a young man 10 years ago. This is how it works today: You come up with an idea, like, say, a shatter proof coating for eyeglasses, which you patent. Then you piece off the congress critters about 10-20 large each (probably less) to pass legislation that all glasses sold to children have to use your coating, you know, to save their eyes... For The Children. They pass the laws, you can then crank up the price and everyone is forced to buy your stuff. It's like we're living in an Ann Rand novel.

Except what you describe is essentially what Ayn Rand would say is good. Remember "selfishness is a virtue," and to her charity is an abomination. I've read quite a few of her books and if the world worked like she would like it to we would be in hell on earth. Mylan making a few billion on a life saving mechanism they didn't even invent is small potatoes compared to what she advocated for.

Amazing how you apparently read her books yet completely missed that she utterly loathed corruption, cronyism, and opportunistic looters like this.

She loathed corruption, cronyism and opportunistic looters when they are enabled by government - if you could be a corrupt cronyist opportunistic looter without getting the government involved (like an 1800s robber baron) you were A-OK by Ayn Rand.

But indeed she would not approve of this situation because of the government involvement. If Mylan, for the sake of argument, had gained a monopoly on some natural resource or trade secret needed to produce the epipen, and jacked up prices for no reason because of that, she'd probably cheer them on.

There was competition, I have used a Twinject epinephrine injector. I believe that it is made in Canada. They stopped importing due to onerous FDA requirements, according to my pharmacy.

There is apparently a very similar product http://www.consumerreports.org/drugs/how-to-get-cheaper-epipen-alternative/

http://adrenaclick.com/how_to_use_adrenaclick_epinephrine_injection_USP_auto_injector.php

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: As I explained to a young man 10 years ago. This is how it works today: You come up with an idea, like, say, a shatter proof coating for eyeglasses, which you patent. Then you piece off the congress critters about 10-20 large each (probably less) to pass legislation that all glasses sold to children have to use your coating, you know, to save their eyes... For The Children. They pass the laws, you can then crank up the price and everyone is forced to buy your stuff. It's like we're living in an Ann Rand novel.

Except what you describe is essentially what Ayn Rand would say is good. Remember "selfishness is a virtue," and to her charity is an abomination. I've read quite a few of her books and if the world worked like she would like it to we would be in hell on earth. Mylan making a few billion on a life saving mechanism they didn't even invent is small potatoes compared to what she advocated for.

Amazing how you apparently read her books yet completely missed that she utterly loathed corruption, cronyism, and opportunistic looters like this.

She loathed corruption, cronyism and opportunistic looters *when they are enabled by government* - if you could be a corrupt cronyist opportunistic looter without getting the government involved (like an 1800s robber baron) you were A-OK by Ayn Rand.

Nope, sorry, absolutely wrong on that. She had her problems, without doubt, but that's not a correct interpretation. She didn't approve of physical coercion in any form - robber barons were absolutely anathema to her, as well as any form of stealing another person's creative property, be it intellectual or labor. But honestly, this isn't the right place to discuss Rand. Feel free to rebut my comments if you wish, but I'm leaving it alone from here out.

While fascinating, I'm going to ask that you guys start a new thread to discuss Ayn Rand (even if I did enjoy reading Anthem in middle school).

I'm watching the second half of the testimony now. Some of the committee members were very well prepared, while Bresch is either completely inept or holding back information. Apparently she doesn't know a lot, even though she is the CEO of the company.

Listening to Buddy Carter, who is an actual pharmacist, gut her was awesome. He knows the introduction of a generic was total B.S. smoke screen.

Huckleberry wrote: A low buck alternative exists. My cousin is a type 1 diabetic. He has syringes, medicine and was taught how to use them. If he waits too long he can become unable to do it for himself and die. Still, they didn't make a special applicator and take away the needles. Why isn't that same standard applied to people who have fatal allergies? For kids, a parent can stab a needle in just as easily as an epipen with 30 seconds of training. You don't need to hit a vein... just a big muscle and even if you break off the needle doing it - you are going to a hospital pronto anyhow. An EMT with pliers will fish it out. It's small beans to suffocating in your own neck. So, why can't I just carry a small bag with a syringe and bottle for my son with a tree nut allergy? Should be about $5 worth of stuff. Or can I and it was not offered but I just need to ask?

You can carry a syringe and an ampule. Just have your doctor subscribe it. I don't do it because I usually self administer and by the time my dumb self realized I need help I'm kinda far gone.

Two years ago I was on the way to the hospital cause of tree nuts and had to have my wife pull the car over while I vomited on a churches front lawn. In front of my kids. I need to be better about using my rescue meds.

EvanR wrote: My friends, Mylan is not a problem, it's merely a symptom of a problem. The problem is that the wealthy rule America. Not the President, not the Congress, but the wealthy. This is the reason that it doesn't matter if Trump or Clinton (or Johnson or Stein) win the Presidential Election. Regardless, the wealthy will continue to rule the country. In order to keep control, however, every once in a while the wealthy need to throw one of their own under the bus. This is for the purpose of making the common folk believe that the government is out to help and protect them. Mind you, even if the CEOs of Mylan or Wells Fargo (this week) are forced to resign, it will be with a huge compensation package, so they will continue to be wealthy. Americans seem to keep falling for the sideshow. The wealthy aren't stupid. Their plan is working perfectly.

Then the only solution is the destruction of the wealthy bourgeoisie by the violent overthrow of the current system and the redistribution of wealth, land, and the means of production to the working proletariat.

In looking into the FDA situation, it's a bit interesting. In a case like this, the FDA is being accused of colluding with a company to block competition. I don't really see much of a trail on how the FDA is being influenced, or is gaining in this situation (money, hookers etc).

The FDA is also being accused of allow TOO MANY products on the market (low efficacy etc). The trail on this one is a bit stronger though because of a law that requires the companies to PAY the FDA to evaluate their product (implemented because the FDA was running really slow evaluating them), so the FDA is gaining in budget if nothing else.

BTW - one of the competitors to the Epipen was rejected by the FDA because it was administering inconstant dosing. Another San Diego based competition was turned back to evaluate quality issues in the injector. An Israeli company also had a product rejected, but I am not sure why.

Encouraging the FDA to approve products that have potential flaws could obviously have some pretty obvious secondary effects.

Huckleberry wrote: A low buck alternative exists. My cousin is a type 1 diabetic. He has syringes, medicine and was taught how to use them. If he waits too long he can become unable to do it for himself and die. Still, they didn't make a special applicator and take away the needles. Why isn't that same standard applied to people who have fatal allergies? For kids, a parent can stab a needle in just as easily as an epipen with 30 seconds of training. You don't need to hit a vein... just a big muscle and even if you break off the needle doing it - you are going to a hospital pronto anyhow. An EMT with pliers will fish it out. It's small beans to suffocating in your own neck. So, why can't I just carry a small bag with a syringe and bottle for my son with a tree nut allergy? Should be about $5 worth of stuff. Or can I and it was not offered but I just need to ask?

I've read that something like this (but a bit more idiot proofed) used to be a thing before the formerly cheap epipens killed the market for it. It was called a "ANA kit", basically a box with a prefilled syringe in it, the only thing special was a membrane that kept the epi solution out of the needle (the needle will rust) until you hit the plunger and a couple dosage markings on the barrel.

Duke wrote:

Jay wrote: The easiest way to fix this little problem is to end all patenting on medicines and pharmaceuticals, immediately, without exceptions. Everybody wins except these dickbags, and the politicians they buy.

Everybody wins except the companies that invest in developing drugs and medicines and the people who work for them, you mean.

...a lot of which is developed by grants & academic funding anyway (there's way more of that than just universities too.) There's a pretty good case to be made that corporate corruption and profiteering are ruining the actual scientific model & holding back major advances. The patent system is one tool that lets them get away with this. I'm looking at this industry from a scientist's POV and it looks like a total clusterberk - I'm in a field that still thrives on publication & sharing of results, and building off the work of others, which is as it should be. Science was around long before patents were.

Also, I imagine there'd be plenty money to be had in bringing any new life saving drug to market without being granted an artificial monopoly.

I think the pharma industry has proved multiple times again they can't be trusted with the distribution of life-saving medicines. Continuing to expect them to shape up without changing any of the parameters that allow them to operate as they do is just madness. It's time to take their ball away and make them sit down until they behave.

Also, I imagine there'd be plenty money to be had in bringing any new life saving drug to market without being granted an artificial monopoly.

I need to know more about this business model.

I just finished 15 years of work to bring a novel drug to market, I have spent half a billion dollars of investor money over 15 years that I now need recover plus make a profit. I open up my retail store and you are selling the exact same drug for a price that does not have to recover the time and money that I do.

Thing about drugs is that they are easy to reverse engineer. And if you are allowed to sell the same thing, the FDA even has a handy clause (510k) that lets you sell it as "substantially the same thing as what is already on the market".

aircooled wrote: Who's to say what a company can charge for a product? If you make a hammer holder for a Miata and sell it for $25,000, the government gets to tell you you can't? Yes, I get the immorality of it all, but that is how the free market works.

This is not a free market. You have the patent on the hammer holder, a large subset of the population requires the hammer holder so that they, you know, can avoid dying on a moment's notice, and you require that the hamemr holder be bought in pairs and be replaced every six months. Also you are the only company that can legally make the hammer holder (see fig. 1: Patented design).

This is the opposite of a free market. This is a highly protected and controlled market, in the sense that cattle are controlled in a stockyard.

Jay wrote: This is doing a great job of making everyone forget about Schkreli or whatever his name was, who just had is 15 minutes for doing exactly the same thing.

People haven't forgotten about Douchebro.