Obamacare cost...

[beefytee]

Have any of you guys seen this?

https://www.amazon.com/AMOXFIN%C2%AE...sh+antibiotics

I guess my BIL bought some as supposedly it is exactly the same as the human pills but much cheaper. I love the reviews talking about the conditions it cleared up for the fish.

[Uncle Ted]

Have any of you guys seen this?

https://www.amazon.com/AMOXFIN%C2%AE...sh+antibiotics

I guess my BIL bought some as supposedly it is exactly the same as the human pills but much cheaper. I love the reviews talking about the conditions it cleared up for the fish.

No more coughing fish!
By Donny V on April 2, 2016
Verified Purchase
My fish was keeping me up all night with his bronchitis. Coughing and hacking, hacking and coughing. Amoxfin cleared it up in a few days! Great stuff!

LOL.

[Eddie]

As long as we are talking about drug costs, I have to give a shout out to Costco Pharmacy.

We do have insurance, so I'm sure that helps with the stuff on their panels regardless of our high deductible plan.

And maybe my doctors are just prescribing the cheap stuff for me and my kids, but the cost savings has been huge. Son got his wisdom teeth out last week. We got a course of antibiotics, some anti-nausea medication, and 2 different pain killers - four prescription for under $5 combined cost. Awesome.

[byu71]

My doctor prescribed some kind of pill that is supposed to help with the nerves and she thinks would help with my issues behind my knees. I think it has helped because I take less lortab now.

The cost was about $350 and my insurance wouldn't cover it. She had given me samples, but I told her I didn't want to pay that much. She gave me some kind of coupon and now I get it for free. I don't know what kind of deal that was, but I like it.

[Lost Student]

Have any of you guys seen this?

https://www.amazon.com/AMOXFIN%C2%AE...sh+antibiotics

I guess my BIL bought some as supposedly it is exactly the same as the human pills but much cheaper. I love the reviews talking about the conditions it cleared up for the fish.

Haha

My...fish...is feeling much better after taking this for a few days for his ear infection...I mean gill infection...and we are very glad this product is here to help! Great product and worth the price. Thanks!

[Jeff Lebowski]

My doctor prescribed some kind of pill that is supposed to help with the nerves and she thinks would help with my issues behind my knees. I think it has helped because I take less lortab now.

The cost was about $350 and my insurance wouldn't cover it. She had given me samples, but I told her I didn't want to pay that much. She gave me some kind of coupon and now I get it for free. I don't know what kind of deal that was, but I like it.

BYU71 taking handouts. Figures.

[byu71]

BYU71 taking handouts. Figures.

That is just something old people do. I also take my HUGE social security checks each month.

[Pelado]

My doctor prescribed some kind of pill that is supposed to help with the nerves and she thinks would help with my issues behind my knees. I think it has helped because I take less lortab now.

The cost was about $350 and my insurance wouldn't cover it. She had given me samples, but I told her I didn't want to pay that much. She gave me some kind of coupon and now I get it for free. I don't know what kind of deal that was, but I like it.

Who knew that the little blue pill also helps with nerves?

[Uncle Ted]

Speaking of health care costs, any of you following the epipen story?

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/23/1260831...en-price-mylan

Be sure to note the part about the Sovaldi pills. $1000 each. Not due to a costly manufacturing process or scarce ingredients, but because they can. $3.5B in sales from this drug in one quarter.

This has nothing to do with ObamaCare, btw. Curious to hear people's thoughts on the issue.

Stoopid FDA...

Anaphylactic Political Shock
Sorry, Hillary. The feds are to blame for Mylan’s EpiPen monopoly.

The latest political pile-on over alleged pharmaceutical price gouging is officially underway now that Hillary Clinton joined the scrum on Wednesday. Usually these exercises are inspired by cures or important clinical innovations that happen to be expensive. The irony this time is that the target is a monopolist created by the same government that Mrs. Clinton wants to hand far more power over drugs.

[...]

Approving a generic copy that is biologically equivalent to a branded drug is simple, but the FDA maintains no clear and consistent principles for generic drug-delivery devices like auto injectors or asthma inhalers. How does a company prove that a generic device is the same as the original product if there are notional differences, even if the differences don’t matter to the end result? In this case, that means immediately injecting a kid in anaphylactic shock with epinephrine—which is not complex medical engineering.


But no company has been able to do so to the FDA’s satisfaction. Last year Sanofi withdrew an EpiPen rival called Auvi-Q that was introduced in 2013, after merely 26 cases in which the device malfunctioned and delivered an inaccurate dose. Though the recall was voluntary and the FDA process is not transparent, such extraordinary actions are never done without agency involvement. This suggests a regulatory motive other than patient safety.

Then in February the FDA rejected Teva’s generic EpiPen application. In June the FDA required a San Diego-based company called Adamis to expand patient trials and reliability studies for still another auto-injector rival.


Mrs. Clinton claims the EpiPen price hikes show the need for price controls, and she says she’ll require drug makers to “prove that any additional costs are linked to additional patient benefits and better value.” Somebody in Congress should require the FDA to justify how its delays are advancing the same goals.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/anaphyla...ock-1472078239

But wait, there's more...

Company that price gouged EpiPen is Clinton Foundation donor

The pharmaceutical company under fire for increasing the cost of its life-saving EpiPen has been criticized by Hillary Clinton — despite the fact that the manufacturer donated to the Clinton Foundation.


Records available on the website of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation reveal Mylan, the company that manufactures the EpiPen, has donated up to $250,000.

[...]

http://nypost.com/2016/08/25/company...ndation-donor/

Yeah, government price controls should make this problem go away. We can trust Hillary to do it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Uncle Ted, this is where you educate us as to how libertarians would solve this problem.

And then say something about whataburger.

[Uncle Ted]

Uncle Ted, this is where you educate us as to how libertarians would solve this problem.

And then say something about whataburger.

Nope, I am not there yet... There's more:

An Unironic “Thanks Obama”

Mylan’s monopoly was also bolstered by the White House. In 2013, President Obama signed into law the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act. The program incentivizes the school system to stockpile EpiPens by dangling the carrot of federal grant monies in front of financially beleaguered school districts. From the time this bill was introduced to the date it was signed by Obama, Mylan’s stock was up nearly 20%.

https://fee.org/articles/don-t-blame..._source=ribbon

Damnit... why didn't I get in on that stock?


Let's bring it all back to the subject of this thread...

But this little piece of legislation pales in comparison to the benefit doled out by the Affordable Care Act. Following Obamacare’s codification, net spending on prescription drugs increased nearly 20%. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry experienced a renaissance era of whirlwind profits: estimates of profits over the next decade range from $10 billion to $35 billion – a hefty door prize for the industry lobbyists who crafted the ACA legislation.


The EpiPen is not a microcosm; the cost of other prescription drugs are also on the rise. A House of Representatives report found that ten different drugs experienced even larger price hikes, starting as low as 420% and as high as 8,000%.


Those companies who “paid to play” are providing a textbook example of crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.

But wait, Obama promised me that my family would save $2,500, right? Well, at least the cost of my whataburger hasn't got up 8,000% (yet).

[cowboy]

Speaking of health care costs, any of you following the epipen story?

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/23/1260831...en-price-mylan

Be sure to note the part about the Sovaldi pills. $1000 each. Not due to a costly manufacturing process or scarce ingredients, but because they can. $3.5B in sales from this drug in one quarter.

This has nothing to do with ObamaCare, btw. Curious to hear people's thoughts on the issue.

My question is why is there no competition for the epipen? The patent has surely run out on a product developed in the '70's, so the only explanation is that the FDA is holding up approval for competing devices. If that's the case, regulation is the problem, not the answer. In a true free market economy, price seeks the cost of production. I am a price taker because there are a million other cattle producers willing to sell their cattle if I hold out for a higher price. After the patent expires and R&D costs are recouped, drugs should be the same way. If there are multiple generic products that are all priced high, then the FDA approval process is increasing the cost of production with a costly approval process. This is why people go to Mexico for certain treatments; drugs are approved much more quickly there than in the US.

Sovaldi is an interesting case. The Dude is right that they are charging it because they can, which means there is demand at that price point. Any insurer that covers transplants will gladly pay for the drug now rather than a liver transplant later. The cost-benefit is a no-brainer. I don't know about Gilead, but Pfizer and Merck have programs for uninsured folks that can't afford retail prices for their drugs, and I would hope the same is true for Gilead.

The incentive to make billions is what makes US companies the leaders in creating miracle drugs like Sovaldi. Tufts reported in 2013 that the cost of development for an approved drug is now $2.5 billion. With only about 16,000 new cases of Hep C per year in the US, the rate of return on their investment over the 10 years they are guaranteed patent protection ranges from 14% if 30% of new cases take the drug, to 30% if 50% of the new cases take the drug. This certainly makes the drug profitable, but the returns on investment are by no means unseemly. '71 is correct, that we are subsidizing the rest of the world. If US drug companies could charge higher prices in other countries, they wouldn't need to charge such high prices in the US.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nope, I am not there yet... There's more:


https://fee.org/articles/don-t-blame..._source=ribbon

Damnit... why didn't I get in on that stock?


Let's bring it all back to the subject of this thread...



But wait, Obama promised me that my family would save $2,500, right? Well, at least the cost of my whataburger hasn't got up 8,000% (yet).

SJBH, but terrible article. Regulation is a valid point, but the attempt to link it to Obama Care was lazy and unconvincing. Correlation <> causation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My question is why is there no competition for the epipen? The patent has surely run out on a product developed in the '70's, so the only explanation is that the FDA is holding up approval for competing devices. If that's the case, regulation is the problem, not the answer. In a true free market economy, price seeks the cost of production. I am a price taker because there are a million other cattle producers willing to sell their cattle if I hold out for a higher price. After the patent expires and R&D costs are recouped, drugs should be the same way. If there are multiple generic products that are all priced high, then the FDA approval process is increasing the cost of production with a costly approval process. This is why people go to Mexico for certain treatments; drugs are approved much more quickly there than in the US.

Sovaldi is an interesting case. The Dude is right that they are charging it because they can, which means there is demand at that price point. Any insurer that covers transplants will gladly pay for the drug now rather than a liver transplant later. The cost-benefit is a no-brainer. I don't know about Gilead, but Pfizer and Merck have programs for uninsured folks that can't afford retail prices for their drugs, and I would hope the same is true for Gilead.

The incentive to make billions is what makes US companies the leaders in creating miracle drugs like Sovaldi. Tufts reported in 2013 that the cost of development for an approved drug is now $2.5 billion. With only about 16,000 new cases of Hep C per year in the US, the rate of return on their investment over the 10 years they are guaranteed patent protection ranges from 14% if 30% of new cases take the drug, to 30% if 50% of the new cases take the drug. This certainly makes the drug profitable, but the returns on investment are by no means unseemly. '71 is correct, that we are subsidizing the rest of the world. If US drug companies could charge higher prices in other countries, they wouldn't need to charge such high prices in the US.

It is not like the epipen is a new product. My daughter has used them for years. For a long time they were $100. The only reason the price shot up is because the competition is gone. This is good old-fashioned price gouging.

[Uncle Ted]

My question is why is there no competition for the epipen? The patent has surely run out on a product developed in the '70's, so the only explanation is that the FDA is holding up approval for competing devices. If that's the case, regulation is the problem, not the answer. In a true free market economy, price seeks the cost of production. I am a price taker because there are a million other cattle producers willing to sell their cattle if I hold out for a higher price. After the patent expires and R&D costs are recouped, drugs should be the same way. If there are multiple generic products that are all priced high, then the FDA approval process is increasing the cost of production with a costly approval process. This is why people go to Mexico for certain treatments; drugs are approved much more quickly there than in the US.

Hmm... crony capitalism? Follow the money.

Sovaldi is an interesting case. The Dude is right that they are charging it because they can, which means there is demand at that price point. Any insurer that covers transplants will gladly pay for the drug now rather than a liver transplant later. The cost-benefit is a no-brainer. I don't know about Gilead, but Pfizer and Merck have programs for uninsured folks that can't afford retail prices for their drugs, and I would hope the same is true for Gilead.

The incentive to make billions is what makes US companies the leaders in creating miracle drugs like Sovaldi. Tufts reported in 2013 that the cost of development for an approved drug is now $2.5 billion. With only about 16,000 new cases of Hep C per year in the US, the rate of return on their investment over the 10 years they are guaranteed patent protection ranges from 14% if 30% of new cases take the drug, to 30% if 50% of the new cases take the drug. This certainly makes the drug profitable, but the returns on investment are by no means unseemly. '71 is correct, that we are subsidizing the rest of the world. If US drug companies could charge higher prices in other countries, they wouldn't need to charge such high prices in the US.

The solution...

FDA --> <-- Libertarians

(Less regulation)

Until then things like the "Dark Web" (aka. "silk road") will become very popular in getting the drugs that americans need (or don't need). Buying sh*t on the dark web isn't rocket science.