D'bag, or Capitalist Hero?

[widebody911]

A former hedge fund manager turned pharmaceutical businessman has purchased the rights to a 62-year-old drug used for treating life-threatening parasitic infections and raised the price overnight from $13.50 per tablet to $750

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hedge-funder-buys-rights-aids-drug-and-raises-price-from-13-50-to-750-per-pill/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

[Neilk]

major d-bag!

[legion]

d-bag.

Capitalism requires many producers of similar products to work. Having a monopoly on a drug is not capitalism.

[Rick Lee]

I didn't understand from the article why, if this drug has been around for 60+ yrs., there aren't lots of generic versions of it. How can they keep the exclusive patent on it for so long? If the profits really go to developing even better drugs, then it's probably a good thing. If no one else wants to bother making a generic because there's no money in it, then what we're seeing is the market at work. No one invests in a pharma company because they want to save the world; they do it to make money.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I didn't understand from the article why, if this drug has been around for 60+ yrs., there aren't lots of generic versions of it. How can they keep the exclusive patent on it for so long? If the profits really go to developing even better drugs, then it's probably a good thing. If no one else wants to bother making a generic because there's no money in it, then what we're seeing is the market at work. No one invests in a pharma company because they want to save the world; they do it to make money.

I think they mention something about companies who would want to create generic versions can't get their hands on enough samples due to regulation.

[GWN7]

He also only has the rights to production in the USA. So that means that people can buy it in Canada or Mexico for probably less than the old price.

d-bag

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by JD159

I think they mention something about companies who would want to create generic versions can't get their hands on enough samples due to regulation.

I saw that, but I don't buy it. Any drug whose patent is long expired and can sustain a 5000% price hike would definitely be worth buying up whatever number of samples required to copy it. Whatever it costs, it would be worth it, especially given the bad PR Shkreli is going to suffer .... because of his d'bag-like appearance and, more importantly, all the people who think drug prices should be inversely proportional to their market demand - the opposite of how everything in capitalism actually works.

[creaturecat]

the price doubled in Canada.
I believe it is 35/pill. Cdn dollars.

[BE911SC]

All this guy did was what big pharma has been doing for years. Need a pill? Then pay up. It's all about the bucks. If you die because you can't afford the pill then that's your tough s h i t. Unfettered free market capitalism.

A friend of mine works for a large pharmecutical company. They spend lavishly and encourage such things as renting Porsches and Mercedes when on business trips. The rationale is that people know you work for them so no Chevy Impalas or Ford Fusions. Roll up to the five-star hotel in your Cayman.

Here in America money is the only truly practiced religion and just pray you don't get sick.

[GWN7]

A drug that was produced and sold for a $1 just awhile ago will have several generic manufactures jumping to produce and sell it for a lot less than the current asking price of $35.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by GWN7

A drug that was produced and sold for a $1 just awhile ago will have several generic manufactures jumping to produce and sell it for a lot less than the current asking price of $35.

Saying it used to cost $1/tablet is pretty misleading. The first tablet usually costs upwards of $1 billion to bring to market. The second one and the rest then sell for $1. If they sell a billion of them (think Viagra or Crestor), then they get their investment back and make a profit. Making an orphan or otherwise rare disease drug is a lot different than the common stuff, which is why they usually get a much longer-term patent. They need more time to recoup their investment.

But if no one wants to bother making a generic copy of this one that just went to $750/tablet, then the price might not yet be high enough.

Anyone else out there willing to put up nine or ten figures for a drug everyone thinks should be priced according to public opinion instead of market economics? I wouldn't touch that.

[jyl]

This is a short term strategy. Eventually, a generic drug company will develop a generic equivalent, get it approved, and figure out the necessary distribution. That will take 2-4 years. If the drug doesn't sell enough per year, generic companies won't bother making the investment to do this, but in that case the price increase doesn't actually matter in the big picture. If you hugely raise the price of a drug, but hardly anyone takes the drug, then it isn't really a societal problem. It is a problem for a few unlucky individuals who don't have Medicare or adequate private insurance.

[VaSteve]

Lets correlate the response to this thread with the one about WV cheating the EPA. Should be interesting to see how the same people feel about the two things.

[Tobra]

Something similar happened with Colchicine, a dirt cheap gout drug. Company bought up all the places making the generic form, closed them, and started selling a similar drug, Colchrist, that was different enough to be patented.

Oh yeah, total a hole d bag

[wdfifteen]

D'bag, or Capitalist Hero?

Why not both? He is a hero to capitalism, AND a D'bag. He is just using capitalism in its most efficient state - monopoly.

[legion]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

D'bag, or Capitalist Hero?

Why not both? He is a hero to capitalism, AND a D'bag. He is just using capitalism in its most efficient state - monopoly.

Capitalism is the opposite of monopoly. Go take an economics class.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by legion

Capitalism is the opposite of monopoly. Go take an economics class.

The ultimate goal of capitalism is monopoly.

[berettafan]

and this is why pure capitalism has no place in modern society.

we DO need to act in the best interest of human beings. this aftermarket manipulation doesn't even have the excuse of needing a profit motive to develop the drug.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

The ultimate goal of capitalism is monopoly.

that is correct.

[legion]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

The ultimate goal of capitalism is monopoly.

Incorrect. The goal of various participants in capitalism may be monopoly. The goal of capitalism is economic efficiency.