Epi

[prosper]

I subscribe to Peter Diamandis excellent site.
Found this and thought it might provoke some thoughts and comments.

Hacker group creates $30 DIY Epipen to expose corporate greed and save lives | Minds



www.minds.com/blog/view/625077755582623755

[beardawg]

Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.

People make it more simplistic than it is, but it still is more expensive than it should be.

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2016 19:24:09 GMT -5 beardawg said:

Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.

People make it more simplistic than it is, but it still is more expensive than it should be.

epi pen was bought by Mylan from small biotech. Even though what you said is true in some cases , in this case it doesn't reflect that but explains why the CEO raked in 18 mil

[beardawg]

still had to recoup money from the purchase. Also, we don't know of the trials they may have done to see if they could improve or use for something else and it failed. I just hate when the news deliberately tries to sensationalize things without giving the full story. Just like when they say a pill takes $1 to make but a company charges $200. They make it seem like the company should charge $2 since that's all it costs. What about all the costs that occurred before it was even made or even approved? They conveniently leave that part out because it won't cause as much of an outrage and won't sell clicks, subscriptions, etc. They know most people won't think it through at all and they prey on our "outrage" generation.

If Americans fund research for a cure or treatment for something and the government achieves it (like that will happen...), then they have every right to demand that it be cheap. But if a company does it, they deserve to charge whatever they want because they took on the risk of failing and losing the money they invested in it. Should they charge whatever? No. But i respect their right to do so.

[Deleted]

^^ it's the media and guberment dawg

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2016 19:24:09 GMT -5 beardawg said:

Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.

People make it more simplistic than it is, but it still is more expensive than it should be.

I'll make it very simplistic for you:

—Sheldon Kaplan was the main inventor of the ComboPen, which is what is also known as the EpiPen

—The ComboPen, the original EpiPen, which was used by the military for years before it ever even became approved by the FDA was sought for because the DoD needed a simple solution for their soldiers to use against nerve gas. The FDA approved the EpiPen for marketing to consumers back in……...wait for it……..1987 (same year I was born)

—Kaplan’s original patent was granted in 1977. The military sought after Kaplan’s invention in 1973 when he worked with Survival Technology, Inc. after leaving NASA.
This is the original patent:
•Hypodermic injection device having means for varying the medicament capacity thereof
patents.justia.com/patent/4031893


—So, just so you are aware, this was all originally funded via taxpayer money once the military got their hands on it.

—There was virtually no risk on Mylan’s part acquiring the rights to market EpiPen from Merck Generics back in 2007 in a deal that costed Mylan $6.7 billion, and included more than just the EpiPen. Also, Mylan does not manufacture the EpiPen. King Pharmaceuticals does, which is also owned by non other than…….Pfizer.
newsroom.mylan.com/press-releases?item=122513


—You see, your claim: “Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.”

—Is completely false. Mylan does NOT
manufacture EpiPen, King Pharmaceuticals which is owned by Pfizer does. Mylan also did NOT research, create, go through the FDA, did not take any risks to go through the FDA because it was ALREADY approved in 1987. Mylan did absolutely NONE of those things, except marketing, which brings me to this corruption:

—In 2012, Mylan launched a program called EpiPen4Schools to sell EpiPen to schools. Obama, your POTUS, signed this into LAW, requiring any school that has students with food allergies to buy EpiPen. Also, the schools had to agree not to buy epinephrine auto injectors from any other company for at least a year.

—Since 2012 Mylan had gone from increasing the price of EpiPen: $200 to over $600 

—If you think you can claim BS you are wrong. I didn't even add all the other facts about US senators being involved and the monopoly Pfizer and Mylan have created.

—You think Urbanski left Mylan because he didn't want to be associated with this corruption? I do. you are either getting your info from a moron or you are here to create disinformation. 

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2016 20:36:27 GMT -5 beardawg said:

still had to recoup money from the purchase. Also, we don't know of the trials they may have done to see if they could improve or use for something else and it failed. I just hate when the news deliberately tries to sensationalize things without giving the full story. Just like when they say a pill takes $1 to make but a company charges $200. They make it seem like the company should charge $2 since that's all it costs. What about all the costs that occurred before it was even made or even approved? They conveniently leave that part out because it won't cause as much of an outrage and won't sell clicks, subscriptions, etc. They know most people won't think it through at all and they prey on our "outrage" generation.

If Americans fund research for a cure or treatment for something and the government achieves it (like that will happen...), then they have every right to demand that it be cheap. But if a company does it, they deserve to charge whatever they want because they took on the risk of failing and losing the money they invested in it. Should they charge whatever? No. But i respect their right to do so.

You don't know of any trials Mylan did with EpiPen because they didn't do any. They simply bought the rights to market the drug. I am seriously concerned about you. Where are you getting this false information and ideas from? Um, hello, the American people DID fund the EpiPen. Who in the hell do you think paid everything when the government sought after it in '73? American taxpayers, that's who. Quit saying Mylan did ANYTHING because they DIDN'T!

[rayskum]

Mango! Kudos to you for bringing out all these details. If this does not answer the question, not sure what else can do?

[seanismorris]

I agree the politics of the writers warps the articles perspective, but the healthcare system is still a mess.

What has people annoyed isn't the cost but the disparity between today's cost and yesterday's cost.  If there is a cost increase it should be justifiable.  Also, there is the disparity between what people pay for the same drug/treatment.  US citizens seem to be unfairly burdened when compared to what other countries citizens pay.  For example, a drug may cost one citizen 100$ but another 600$ depending on the US health plan / status.  Then you add in Europe (for example) paying considerably less for the same thing, people get justifiably annoyed.

I get making drugs more cheaply available in less well off countries, and I don't think anyone will argue against it.  But, when comparing Europe and the US, the cost difference seems to be the number of lawyers (lawsuits) and inefficiencies in the system.  We just had a major overhaul of the healthcare system and everything looks worse, not better.  Healthcare costs are increasing at a rate that puts even more people unable to afford treatment.

I think people understand more that you give them credit for regardless of the articles.  But the bottom line people are dying because they can't afford healthcare/treatment.  The Epipen anger is just a symbol for their general frustration with the system.  What 'they' see is politicians receiving treatments on the taxpayers dollar but their situation (as promised) not improving.

The articles may decry 'corporate greed' but the reality is a failed political solution to a problem.  I stopped following the Epipen situation after reading the first article.  There is plenty of blame to pass around but it starts with politicians taking advice/payoffs from corporations to create an even more flawed system.

The only answer I see is a complete overhaul of the political system starting with elections.  Only individuals should be able make donations, not corporations, organizations, unions, etc. (all donations public). The Superpacs should be the first thing outlawed.  The gaming of the system (by money) results in garbage in and garbage out, with politicians not working for the benefit of the people.

It is no surprise that the Epipen remains in the 'news' during elections.  Politicians and the organizations that support them will do anything for a vote.  I find the whole process disgusting...  I need data to make the vote decision, not people insulting each other.  And no I also don't watch Oprah; I don't consider that or Elections to be entertainment.

You had to bring this up again...sheesh.  

As it relates to MannKind: We'd like to think MannKind is developing a superior/cheaper alternative to the Epipen, but I'm not sold on it yet.  This is one of those situations were a needle may be superior to an inhaler.  We'll have to wait on more data...assuming MannKind is still around to provide it.

[sophie]

The question I have is why hasn't Mylan bought out EpInhale before it starts to take a chunk out of their market? Smart companies buy out any competition while they're still cheap in order to limit legitimate competition. Besides, who wouldn't want a tri-pack with an inhaler and 2 pens? It kind of only makes sense to offer the inhaled epinephrine with a needle alternative anyway.

The way I see it, Mylan doesn't feel threatened or they can't have it. I have a hard time believing if they wanted it that Matt wouldn't have come to some sort of agreement. Both sides have bargaining power. Mylan with our limited cash= urgency and MNKD with the threat of going to a competitor or being the competitor that will likely cut out a much larger piece of the pie than what would be offered in a deal.

[lennymnkd]

Well said !

[lennymnkd]

Oct 2, 2016 20:36:27 GMT -5 beardawg said:

still had to recoup money from the purchase. Also, we don't know of the trials they may have done to see if they could improve or use for something else and it failed. I just hate when the news deliberately tries to sensationalize things without giving the full story. Just like when they say a pill takes $1 to make but a company charges $200. They make it seem like the company should charge $2 since that's all it costs. What about all the costs that occurred before it was even made or even approved? They conveniently leave that part out because it won't cause as much of an outrage and won't sell clicks, subscriptions, etc. They know most people won't think it through at all and they prey on our "outrage" generation.

If Americans fund research for a cure or treatment for something and the government achieves it (like that will happen...), then they have every right to demand that it be cheap. But if a company does it, they deserve to charge whatever they want because they took on the risk of failing and losing the money they invested in it. Should they charge whatever? No. But i respect their right to do so.

Well said !

[beardawg]

Oct 2, 2016 21:57:04 GMT -5 mango said:

Oct 2, 2016 19:24:09 GMT -5 beardawg said:

Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.

People make it more simplistic than it is, but it still is more expensive than it should be.

I'll make it very simplistic for you:

—Sheldon Kaplan was the main inventor of the ComboPen, which is what is also known as the EpiPen

—The ComboPen, the original EpiPen, which was used by the military for years before it ever even became approved by the FDA was sought for because the DoD needed a simple solution for their soldiers to use against nerve gas. The FDA approved the EpiPen for marketing to consumers back in……...wait for it……..1987 (same year I was born)
—Kaplan’s original patent was granted in 1977. The military sought after Kaplan’s invention in 1973 when he worked with Survival Technology, Inc. after leaving NASA.
This is the original patent:
•Hypodermic injection device having means for varying the medicament capacity thereof
patents.justia.com/patent/4031893


—So, just so you are aware, this was all originally funded via taxpayer money once the military got their hands on it.
Being used by the military and being funded by taxpayer money are two different things. From what I've read, it sounds like the wouldn't have received a dime if they didn't come up with the injector. That the military used it is of no consequence. Should we also get free/cheap guns and knives from companies that sell guns and knives to the military (at the behest of the military)?
—There was virtually no risk on Mylan’s part acquiring the rights to market EpiPen from Merck Generics back in 2007 in a deal that costed Mylan $6.7 billion, and included more than just the EpiPen. Also, Mylan does not manufacture the EpiPen. King Pharmaceuticals does, which is also owned by non other than…….Pfizer.
newsroom.mylan.com/press-releases?item=122513
Yes, there was risk. They paid money to market it. If they couldn't increase sales, they would lose out on the deal.

—You see, your claim: “Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.”

—Is completely false. Mylan does NOT manufacture EpiPen, King Pharmaceuticals which is owned by Pfizer does. Mylan also did NOT research, create, go through the FDA, did not take any risks to go through the FDA because it was ALREADY approved in 1987. Mylan did absolutely NONE of those things, except marketing, which brings me to this corruption:
The fact that they don't actually make it is irrelevant. King Pharma doesn't make it for free; there is a cost associated with that. The total cost/profit is split between all of the companies, though I'm sure Mylan profits the most. Just like Sanofi "marketed" for MannKind, MannKind has costs associated with creating/manufacturing Afrezza, so they even charged it to the partnership. Sanofi didn't create anything, but they would have handsomely benefited from the sale of Afrezza. It's no different than Walmart selling a product. They didn't make it at all; that doesn't mean they don't include in the price the cost to make it.


—In 2012, Mylan launched a program called EpiPen4Schools to sell EpiPen to schools. Obama, your POTUS, signed this into LAW, requiring any school that has students with food allergies to buy EpiPen. Also, the schools had to agree not to buy epinephrine auto injectors from any other company for at least a year.
I agree, corrupt in how they got into schools. If they didn't do it that way, but it just came about naturally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's a helpful thing, no different than requiring healthy food or certain cleaning products or something.

—Since 2012 Mylan had gone from increasing the price of EpiPen: $200 to over $600 
Excessive, yes. But how do you decide the cost? I can't say it's always the best way, but competition is a good way. If others can't make it, it shows how much they had to do to come up with it. If it was simple, everyone would get into it successfully. And the whole point of a patent is the reward the company for the work they put in so that they can benefit exclusively from that work for a set time. it's a short term monopoly to encourage innovation. Innovate and you will be rewarded. If still no one can come up with an alternative after the patent expires, you then survive on the merit of the complexity of the invention itself.

—If you think you can claim BS you are wrong. I didn't even add all the other facts about US senators being involved and the monopoly Pfizer and Mylan have created.

—You think Urbanski left Mylan because he didn't want to be associated with this corruption? I do. you are either getting your info from a moron or you are here to create disinformation.
I highly doubt that. they had been raising the prices for years before he left.

See comments above in blue.

Again, I AGREE that the Epipen is overpriced. My gripe is with the misleading "it only costs a dollar to make" argument. 

[beardawg]

Oct 2, 2016 21:57:04 GMT -5 mango said:

Oct 2, 2016 19:24:09 GMT -5 beardawg said:

Though it is overpriced, the cost of the Epipen includes more than just the manufacturing cost. It includes everything it took to research, create, and go through FDA approval, along with the risks the company took that it wouldn't get approved (and the wasted money it could had), and advertising.

People make it more simplistic than it is, but it still is more expensive than it should be.

—In 2012, Mylan launched a program called EpiPen4Schools to sell EpiPen to schools. Obama, your POTUS, signed this into LAW, requiring any school that has students with food allergies to buy EpiPen. Also, the schools had to agree not to buy epinephrine auto injectors from any other company for at least a year.

Do you not live in the US? if so, why my POTUS?

[mnkdfann]

Oct 5, 2016 1:53:27 GMT -5 beardawg said:

Oct 2, 2016 21:57:04 GMT -5 mango said:

—In 2012, Mylan launched a program called EpiPen4Schools to sell EpiPen to schools. Obama, your POTUS, signed this into LAW, requiring any school that has students with food allergies to buy EpiPen. Also, the schools had to agree not to buy epinephrine auto injectors from any other company for at least a year.

Do you not live in the US? if so, why my POTUS?

In any case, several things mango said are untrue. Mylan gave EpiPen to schools for free. The law - School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act - is separate from the EpiPen4Schools program. The School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act did not require Mylan's product specifically to be stocked. Both parties supported the Act, it was bipartisan.