Cancer Doctors Protest 'Astronomical' Drug Costs

[T3h Jinji]

Tanini Tanini

It's nice to see doctors sticking up for their patients. heart

It's nice to know that there are still some people becoming doctors because they want to help people who need it, not who just want to become rich.

[Twirlesque xx]

T3h Jinji

Tanini Tanini

It's nice to see doctors sticking up for their patients. heart

It's nice to know that there are still some people becoming doctors because they want to help people who need it, not who just want to become rich.

That too, for sure.

[Lily_Fairegarden]

Hasuki Aatisuto

xdivision_whitey

T3h Jinji

It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?

Well you got to pay for the research and the making of the drugs.

That makes sense, but, honestly, why price it out of their price range? Why even make it in the first place? Only rich people could afford the cure, and it would just stabilize their power over the poorer, dwindling communities.

Actually, Hasuki, I think you just answered your own question. Drug manufacturers are not altruistic people - these are boards who answer for the dividends their company makes for their shareholders, not people who actually care about people too poor to pay for their services.

I don't mind the idea of helping to pay for the research, but frankly, it would make more sense for a country to use their money to underwrite research for the benefits of its citizens instead of fighting insane unnecessary wars. It would be better than putting it on the backs of those already too ill to make the money on their own to afford the treatment.

It's a screwed up world we live in, with screwed up priorities. I'm not sure the "grown-ups" are going to do anything to make it any less so, do you?

~Lily

[Koemiko]

Super Fightin Prototype

David2074

I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.

It is pretty disconcerting, isn't it? They're cheaper in other countries but they get away with what practically amounts to highway robbery in the US for who even knows what reason. Lack of a price ceiling, maybe? confused

There's usually a geographically agreed-upon cost for certain procedures and exams, but the cost of service for each doctor is usually what varies.

[Koemiko]

David2074

Super Fightin Prototype

David2074

Super Fightin Prototype

David2074

I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.

It is pretty disconcerting, isn't it? They're cheaper in other countries but they get away with what practically amounts to highway robbery in the US for who even knows what reason. Lack of a price ceiling, maybe? confused

Definitely their is no price ceiling that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how you'd set one since I assume different drugs really do cost different amounts of R&D money but it's very clear it is a 'what the market will bear' pricing scheme.

If you recall (last year I think) there were articles about people mail ordering drugs from other countries to the US because they were cheaper. Same drugs they were getting in the US - just hella cheaper. Drug companies were howling for feds to put a stop to it. Part of the argument was safety - "Less QA / Different laws / Might be counterfeit or tainted!". But part of it was acknowledging they really do sell those drugs in other countries for cheaper. Kind of along the lines of "Yes we sell those AIDS drugs to African folks for a shitload less than we sell them in the US but that's all those poor people can afford and if we sell them for that low price in the USA it we won't be able to afford to help those folks in Africa / we'll make less profit".

The problem with that last part is it tacitly admits they are forcing US customers to foot part of the health bill for citizens of other countries. And not just. USA. Basically any country they think they can squeeze the money out of. While meds are only one part of the issue I wonder if we would be better off with nationalized drug companies. Pay the scientists well to keep them on staff but don't pay billions to the shareholders. Instead those extra billions would be 'distributed' to the citizens in the form of reasonable prices for meds. It could also be political goodwill for countries to share new drug discoveries with other countries like they sometimes do with new methods of treatment.

Greed is the cause of a lot of grief in the world. Or to quote the old Bible verse "The love of money is the root of all evil". (not money as many people misquote it but love of - as in greed).

To me, price ceilings would be based on the type of drug rather than an all-around ceiling, which would just encourage companies to push prices of certain drugs higher.

How does one decide which drug / what price?
On the surface it sounds easy to say "Oh! Cancer and AIDS drugs should get top priority because those diseases kill people".
But then what about much more common and cheaper drugs like the various meds for high blood pressure or diabetes? Those problems do not (always) kill but a much larger amount of people need them and the problems associated with those conditions cause numerous other related health issues.
If you specify prices for certain drugs it would be a de facto degree of which drugs to produce because drug companies would still go for profit. Thus what they would develop / produce would be had the highest $$ from the equation (drug sell price X amount we think we can sell) - anticipated cost of R&D and production = net profit.
I think the only way that might work is if you also mandated production. But that would be difficult to enforce. Likely for unprofitable new drugs it would become, "Um yeah, we're still working on that / have not perfected it yet / we'll be in touch".

Typically, the company that makes the drug keeps the rights to the formula for about seventeen years, which tends to determine the initial price; then the formula is released and allowed to be made as a generic, which is where the cost of making it and the demand tends to come into effect.

Also, the Ophran Drug Act means that they've got incentive to research drugs for not-so-common conditions.

[Koemiko]

Lily_Fairegarden

Hasuki Aatisuto

xdivision_whitey

T3h Jinji

It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?

Well you got to pay for the research and the making of the drugs.

That makes sense, but, honestly, why price it out of their price range? Why even make it in the first place? Only rich people could afford the cure, and it would just stabilize their power over the poorer, dwindling communities.

Actually, Hasuki, I think you just answered your own question. Drug manufacturers are not altruistic people - these are boards who answer for the dividends their company makes for their shareholders, not people who actually care about people too poor to pay for their services.

I don't mind the idea of helping to pay for the research, but frankly, it would make more sense for a country to use their money to underwrite research for the benefits of its citizens instead of fighting insane unnecessary wars. It would be better than putting it on the backs of those already too ill to make the money on their own to afford the treatment.

It's a screwed up world we live in, with screwed up priorities. I'm not sure the "grown-ups" are going to do anything to make it any less so, do you?

~Lily

Would take more public effort on behalf of "not grown-ups" than an Internet Forum to do that, honestly...

[Pia Austin]

Yeah I think the companies have forgotten the reason cancer drugs were created in the first place, cough, cough not to make a profit.

You can't create a drug that treats CANCER OR AIDS, both diseases which lead to DEATH, and then say "I can't give it to you unless you give me hundreds of thousands of dollars." I can deal with maybe $20,000 a year not 100,000. Jesus help the insurance companies paying the bills too, OMG.

[David2074]

Koemiko

Typically, the company that makes the drug keeps the rights to the formula for about seventeen years, which tends to determine the initial price; then the formula is released and allowed to be made as a generic, which is where the cost of making it and the demand tends to come into effect.

Also, the Ophran Drug Act means that they've got incentive to research drugs for not-so-common conditions.

While what you said is more or less accurate I'm not sure what your point is or how it relates to what we were saying about companies price gouging, sometimes in the extreme, while always using the mantra of "we have to do it for our R&D money".

A drug patent in the US lasts 20 years but is issued before clinical trials begin. From some stuff I read the net effect of on market time is 7-12 years. Though I'm sure it is longer in some cases. You also have manufacturers coming out with new variants of their drugs (time release, slightly different combo etc) to have a 'new' drug once the original one becomes available as generic.

The orphan drug act applies (mostly) to diseases with under 200k instances in the USA. And yes, it provides some incentives to encourage a company to produce drugs for such diseases. But the stuff we were talking aout - HIV / many types of cancer are not rare diseases as defined by that act.
(Instances in the USA)
HIV 1,300,000
Prostate Cancer 432k
Lung Cancer 415k
Colorectal Cancer 270k
Breast Cancer 386k

The argument isn't that drug companies should not be able to patent their work or try to turn a profit on their efforts.
The argument is they take advantage of the situation and gouge the hell out of the public for every dime they think they can squeeze out of them. Current laws / rules would be okay if companies were not abusing them.

[Desmond the Mudblood]

Modern cancer treatment, I am pretty sure, is a fraud. A hundred grand a year for a drug that'll scarcely keep you alive longer than any other treatment? What is the point? Besides more money in the pockets of Big Pharma, of course. It's absolutely sickening.

[Koemiko]

David2074

Koemiko

Typically, the company that makes the drug keeps the rights to the formula for about seventeen years, which tends to determine the initial price; then the formula is released and allowed to be made as a generic, which is where the cost of making it and the demand tends to come into effect.

Also, the Ophran Drug Act means that they've got incentive to research drugs for not-so-common conditions.

While what you said is more or less accurate I'm not sure what your point is or how it relates to what we were saying about companies price gouging, sometimes in the extreme, while always using the mantra of "we have to do it for our R&D money".

A drug patent in the US lasts 20 years but is issued before clinical trials begin. From some stuff I read the net effect of on market time is 7-12 years. Though I'm sure it is longer in some cases. You also have manufacturers coming out with new variants of their drugs (time release, slightly different combo etc) to have a 'new' drug once the original one becomes available as generic.

The orphan drug act applies (mostly) to diseases with under 200k instances in the USA. And yes, it provides some incentives to encourage a company to produce drugs for such diseases. But the stuff we were talking aout - HIV / many types of cancer are not rare diseases as defined by that act.
(Instances in the USA)
HIV 1,300,000
Prostate Cancer 432k
Lung Cancer 415k
Colorectal Cancer 270k
Breast Cancer 386k

The argument isn't that drug companies should not be able to patent their work or try to turn a profit on their efforts.
The argument is they take advantage of the situation and gouge the hell out of the public for every dime they think they can squeeze out of them. Current laws / rules would be okay if companies were not abusing them.

Was adding in information on how drug prices are determined, up to and including the Oprhan Drug Act. But you are correct, it does not pertain to HIV and various forms of cancer.

I suppose a better question would be, how much time and money goes into research and development?

[David2074]

Koemiko

I suppose a better question would be, how much time and money goes into research and development?

Oh.
And yeah to that last part but quantifying it could be hard. Even if they gave hard numbers for R&D on a particular drug the argument I've heard before is, "Yeah but we have to make extra profits on successful drug A so that we can afford the losses of unsuccessful drug B. Of course to some extent that argument is valid. The problem is it seems to translate into, "Gouge for every bit of profits we can get because someday we may have a couple of unsuccessful drugs in a row".

[Koemiko]

David2074

Koemiko

I suppose a better question would be, how much time and money goes into research and development?

Oh.
And yeah to that last part but quantifying it could be hard. Even if they gave hard numbers for R&D on a particular drug the argument I've heard before is, "Yeah but we have to make extra profits on successful drug A so that we can afford the losses of unsuccessful drug B. Of course to some extent that argument is valid. The problem is it seems to translate into, "Gouge for every bit of profits we can get because someday we may have a couple of unsuccessful drugs in a row".

From this side of the fence, it's honestly hard to say which is "we need this to stay afloat" and which is "MONEY, MORE MONEY!" I really would like a nonbiased insider along with an expert to explain it to laypersons.

Also, it's why I'm not all, "HOW DARE YOU BIG PHARM," because that means getting pissed over things I know very little about.

Still... that Doctors will stand up for it says a lot. It's also why I'm a major fan of http://www.pnhp.org/ .