|
|
Post by liane on Sept 21, 2015 6:19:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Sept 21, 2015 7:20:07 GMT -5
Possible unintended consequence due to the restrictive nature of the ACA and this is how drug companies are fighting back? Schmuckerlli isn't the only one doing this. Was this a practice of drug companies prior to the ACA being forced down our throats? |
|
|
|
Post by caveintemptor on Sept 21, 2015 7:32:37 GMT -5
Martin is a perfect example of the ethical behaviors that give a negative image of finance and investing.
Then we wonder why when the backlash comes...
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Sept 21, 2015 7:44:26 GMT -5
Martin is a perfect example of the ethical behaviors that give a negative image of finance and investing. Then we wonder why when the backlash comes... funny because Sanofi is practically giving away Afrezza for the first few scripts and even that isn't generating much interest in the drug. I wouldn't be surprised if it is his way to "negotiating" with the insurance companies for a better price. The huge price increase is the initial shock and awe from Touring to the insurance companies to come to the bargaining table to renegotiate pricing. |
|
|
|
Post by blindhog1 on Sept 21, 2015 8:36:06 GMT -5
Possible unintended consequence due to the restrictive nature of the ACA and this is how drug companies are fighting back? Schmuckerlli isn't the only one doing this. Was this a practice of drug companies prior to the ACA being forced down our throats? This article has nothing to due with the ACA being forced down anybody's throat. It appears to be about unregulated private enterprise being shoved up the consumers ass. Kind of makes you long for a single payer system, doesn't it?
If you're going to make this political, at least tell it like it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Sept 21, 2015 8:52:22 GMT -5
Possible unintended consequence due to the restrictive nature of the ACA and this is how drug companies are fighting back? Schmuckerlli isn't the only one doing this. Was this a practice of drug companies prior to the ACA being forced down our throats? This article has nothing to due with the ACA being forced down anybody's throat. It appears to be about unregulated private enterprise being shoved up the consumers ass. Kind of makes you long for a single payer system, doesn't it?
If you're going to make this political, at least tell it like it is.
Did you pay attention to the question mark which signals I was asking a question if it is an unintended consequence of it? It may not but my guess it is and this is Martin playing hardball with the insurance companies that want to pay as little as possible. Btw, who runs the ACA? The same insurance companies that those who wrote the ACA were trying to curb. But Obama got in bed with the insurance companies and the end result is that we are now paying more for health care and receiving less. I know first hand as my costs have gone up and I can't see the doctors I saw before even when the president said I could. Can you explain that one? And sorry to break it to you, but the laws that are passed by congress tend to have unintended consequences. The ACA is chalk full of them. Look hard and put on your objective sailing cap on you'll see them. |
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Sept 21, 2015 8:53:31 GMT -5
Possible unintended consequence due to the restrictive nature of the ACA and this is how drug companies are fighting back? Schmuckerlli isn't the only one doing this. Was this a practice of drug companies prior to the ACA being forced down our throats? This article has nothing to due with the ACA being forced down anybody's throat. It appears to be about unregulated private enterprise being shoved up the consumers ass. Kind of makes you long for a single payer system, doesn't it?
If you're going to make this political, at least tell it like it is.
All politics aside, ACA ultimately will be a real "shot in the arm" (old reality) or "hit on the Dreamboat" (new reality). Although margins on health care overall will shrink a little (with insurance companies gouging just as much as ever, or more), what could be better than more insured out there to benefit from drugs that might be a little pricier (like Afrezza) that reduce or eliminate complications due to insulin therapy like hypoglycemia, a sometimes fatal condition? Eliminating serious side effects like hypoglycemia saves lives. Sanofi knows this, but doctors, nurses, insurance companies still mostly don't. The improved blood glucose control, reduced A1c and reduced complications of all kinds, and user-friendliness will merit coverage soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Sept 21, 2015 9:23:09 GMT -5
As memory serves, the relevant legislation pertains to the Part D prescription drug act provisions of Medicare. I seem to recall that drug companies successfully thwarted efforts to control how prices are established to prevent "Free market" interference. Part D legislation precluded the ability of the government to negotiate reduced prices based on volume. Of course, when there is a virtual monopoly on the treatment for a rare drug, insufficient competition exists to keep the prices humane and only ethics are then in play. What is the practical and moral difference between holding a gun on someone and demanding their money in exchange for their life, or demanding a ransom for a life saving drug? I call it legalized extortion, and it's repugnant and inconsistent with a civilized society. It's emblematic of a growing list of injustices that is creating a tinderbox in the USA.
This excerpt from an article on Part D may help to underscore the above:
Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle-cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".[27]
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R–La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[28][29] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.[30]
Not surprisingly, Shkreli "trained" under Jim Cramer. His standing in my book places him at a level one notch below whale turds.
Addendum: A society can be corrupt if it fails to legislate and enforce sanctions against practices that are contrary to the constitutional rights of its citizens or harm the collective well-being of its constituents.
|
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Sept 21, 2015 9:30:19 GMT -5
As memory serves, the relevant legislation pertains to the Part D prescription drug act provisions of Medicare. I seem to recall that drug companies successfully thwarted efforts to control how prices are established to prevent "Free market" interference. Part D legislation precluded the ability of the government to negotiate reduced prices based on volume. Of course, when there is a virtual monopoly on the treatment for a rare drug, insufficient competition exists to keep the prices humane and only ethics are then in play. What is the practical and moral difference between holding a gun on someone and demanding their money in exchange for their life, or demanding a ransom for a life saving drug? I call it legalized extortion, and it's repugnant and inconsistent with a civilized society. It's emblematic of a growing list of injustices that is creating a tinderbox in the USA. This excerpt from an article on Part D may help to underscore the above: Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle-cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".[27]
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R–La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[28][29] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.[30]Not surprisingly, Shkreli "trained" under Jim Cramer. His standing in my book places him at a level one notch below whale turds. Chris, funny you are speaking of whale turds. See this article: Sperm Whale Shit Will Make You Rich. Sorry, this is really off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by scottiemac on Sept 21, 2015 10:57:58 GMT -5
Oh yeah this is an OLD practice, long before ACA. Also years of stalling by big pharma over when their drugs come off patent and can be made by others or as generics. They've been playing games with this for decades, tweaking a formula and calling it a new drug and covered under patent (and higher price). Surprised they haven't been charged under RICO statutes. Good reason (another one) for single payer; if not that, then prescription sales ought to be opened to international purchases. If a drug is GRAS/E in Canada or the UK no reason why we should pay more here.
|
|
|
|
Post by savzak on Sept 21, 2015 11:02:10 GMT -5
CNBC just attributed the quick drop in the biotechs we just saw to a tweet by Hillary Clinton complaining about Touring's price increase and stating she'll have a plan out tomorrow to deal with so called price gouging.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindhog1 on Sept 21, 2015 11:46:51 GMT -5
CNBC just attributed the quick drop in the biotechs we just saw to a tweet by Hillary Clinton complaining about Touring's price increase and stating she'll have a plan out tomorrow to deal with so called price gouging. Can you imagine the Government being able to negotiate with drug companies about pricing. And you say it's all Hillary Clinton's fault? What is this world coming too? 
www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/biotech-falls-on-clinton-price-gouging-comments.html
|
|
|
|
Post by suebeeee1 on Sept 21, 2015 12:25:44 GMT -5
Martin is a perfect example of the ethical behaviors that give a negative image of finance and investing. Then we wonder why when the backlash comes... funny because Sanofi is practically giving away Afrezza for the first few scripts and even that isn't generating much interest in the drug. I wouldn't be surprised if it is his way to "negotiating" with the insurance companies for a better price. The huge price increase is the initial shock and awe from Touring to the insurance companies to come to the bargaining table to renegotiate pricing. Sanofi is only giving a modest discount. Since our insurance doesn't cover it, we only get the discount, which still leaves us with nearly $400 a month in cost for this. Is it worth it? Of course, and we can't wait until it is covered by our insurance company. But, clearly, they aren't "giving it away". Until the insurance companies get on board, which will require either an upgrade in the labeling or a discount to the insurance companies, many of us will be stuck with the difficult decision of whether or not to pay for this drug ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by suebeeee1 on Sept 21, 2015 12:32:32 GMT -5
It is the behavior of this hedge fund and other pharmaceutical companies gouging the public that will bring on socialized medicine. There is no excuse for this kind of action. It is disgusting and unacceptable. Yet, we have legislators that are unwilling or unable to stop it. Free market at its worst! |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Sept 21, 2015 12:43:57 GMT -5
funny because Sanofi is practically giving away Afrezza for the first few scripts and even that isn't generating much interest in the drug. I wouldn't be surprised if it is his way to "negotiating" with the insurance companies for a better price. The huge price increase is the initial shock and awe from Touring to the insurance companies to come to the bargaining table to renegotiate pricing. Sanofi is only giving a modest discount. Since our insurance doesn't cover it, we only get the discount, which still leaves us with nearly $400 a month in cost for this. Is it worth it? Of course, and we can't wait until it is covered by our insurance company. But, clearly, they aren't "giving it away". Until the insurance companies get on board, which will require either an upgrade in the labeling or a discount to the insurance companies, many of us will be stuck with the difficult decision of whether or not to pay for this drug ourselves. I believe suebeeee1 is correct. Per this post started by Rozale, the discount card that sanofi gives to make sure your copay does not exceed $30 is only good for the first $125. |
|
