US drugmaker raises price of vitamins by more than 800%
ft.com
ft.com
https://www.rbc.ru/society/10/12/2017/5a2d310f9a794763beb123...
For non-subscribers, hear you go. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> American drug manufacturer Avondale Pharmaceuticals "raised the price of vitamins" Niacor "by 809%, to $ 295 per package," writes the Financial Times . This is the only medicine containing niacin (vitamin B3), which can be bought by prescription.
Last month, one package of vitamins per 100 tablets cost $ 32.46. The medicine containing niacin can be bought in online stores for $ 5, but it is not certified by the US Health Department - the Office of Sanitary Supervision for Food and Drug Administration.
"Avondale took advantage of the strategy of businessman Martin Shkrely:the company bought the rights to the medicine from Upsher Smith, the American unit of Japanese Sawai Pharmaceutical, being the only producer of the drug, and sharply increased the price."
How many times must this happen before the government gets involved?
Is this only meant for people who have some condition that requires a much larger than normal dose?
As far as buying from those online sources that are $5 for 100 tablets but are not FDA certified, niacin is also available from many of the supplement makers that sell in brick and mortar stores, like Rite Aid, CVS, Walmart, etc. Those brands cost more than the cheapest online-only brands, but might be more reliable, and can also be found online fairly cheap. Nature's Bounty brand niacin supplement, for example, is available via Amazon at $24 for 240 500 mg tablets (2000% RDA).
It should be noted that there are at least four different forms of niacin supplements avilable.
• nicotinic acid
• nicotinic acid combined with agents to slow its release
• nicotinamide
• inositol hexanicotinate
I think the Niacor is the first form. The Nature's Bounty supplements are the fourth form.
Here's an article that explains how the forms differ biologically: https://www.crnusa.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/1...
https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-system...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160823124857.h...
FIFY.
To expand a bit, what is going to prevent your new "stronger" government from getting captured by the very same lobbyists, except now they'll have even more power to distort and manipulate the market?
In this specific case, the fundamental problem appears to be that only one company has jumped through the FDA hoops (which can cost billions) to sell "prescription" niacin. How is piling even more regulation on top of that going to make the problem go away?
The core idea of governance is not the issue, which is somewhat buried beneath the idea that "government is too large" hints at.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural, ethical, and contextual. In this case, later era capitalist "market drives everything". Everything is a market. Everything a transaction. Including how to sway politicians.
As a counterpoint, in Canada our government has regulated against[1] these sorts of issues. We aren't an ideal by a long shot[2][3], but we sure as hell value it when our government leans on corporate entities. I believe the same happened in the EU with regards to cellular roaming?
[1] http://pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/home
[2] Unironically it was a conservative "free market" government that landed us in this pickle.
[3] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-must-and-can-...
There's no longer any "referee" to bribe? The fans get to vote on the winner in a free market?
> Everything is a market. Everything a transaction. Including how to sway politicians.
The less power politicians have, the smaller the return on buying them. And vice versa.
> We aren't an ideal by a long shot[2][3], but we sure as hell value it when our government leans on corporate entities.
There is essentially zero drug development in Canada. Have you ever wondered why that might be? Do you think it might be a problem (for Canada) if the same policies were applied in the U.S.?
As far as I can see, there are no Canadian companies on this list. It's heavily dominated by the U.S. and Switerland, with an occasional outlier in the U.K., France, etc.
Bzzt.
People end up dead.
In the case of Big Pharma, it is a fitting analogy.
> There is essentially zero drug development in Canada. Have you ever wondered why that might be? Do you think it might be a problem (for Canada) if the same policies were applied in the U.S.?
So you are suggesting that Canada doesn't participate in drug research? Or are you suggesting that government monitored pricing prevents Martin Shkreli types from making mega purchasing rights to drugs they had nothing to do with to inflate the pricing and profit so they can spend two million dollars on important Wu-Tang (?) album research?
Not sure which sort of statement you are hinting at.
I'm suggesting that the type of regulation you seem to favor stifles drug research, yes. If the entire world adopted your policies, there simply wouldn't be any new drugs.
> Martin Shkreli types
The only reason the "Martin Shkreli types" are able to do what they do is that government regulations make it difficult or economically impossible for competitors to enter the marketplace, even with drugs for which the patent has long expired.
If the above is what you meant to say then what is so bad about these drugs that getting them into the market is detrimental to the population? Drug companies will always make drugs. To say they won't is patently false, most of their research is paid for through the government grant system anyways, the trials on the other hand can be expensive, bu they already conduct their shady trials in poor countries and only bring them to developed countries when they have the best chance to succeed. I'm not really sure what a percentage cap on profits would prevent especially since most of the complaints are against existing drugs becoming more expensive. Few people complain when cutting edge drugs and therapies are expensive, everyone understands progress is expensive. No one understands a well established drug suddenly becoming 800% more expensive for what only seems like profit motive. Greed is not acceptable when it comes to human life for most developed countries.