Pharma exec says he had 'moral requirement' to raise drug price 400%
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
As i mention frequently, i was in US nuclear navy. Its self-regulated. The DOE and NRC dont come and inspect the nuclear warships being run by 22 year old kids. This is possible almost entirely due to cultural reasons. A huge portion of initial and periodic training is devoted to integrity and aligning morality.
"Moral" is a subtly toxic word because it has some vague equivalence with being nice, but in reality they are totally orthogonal. If your friend is doing bad things as a nuclear sailor and you know his family is living paycheck to paycheck, sometimes the moral thing is to get him in trouble so he loses half months pay X 2 months.
For a more direct comparison, when natural disasters happen, most groceries are prohibited from raising prices for moral reasons - how could it be right to charge people more for water when they dont have any? The answer, that requires you to turn away people seeking clean water, is that if you dont raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didnt really need it were buying it just because.
As someone who’s taken a moral philosophy class, this sounded a bit like, “people who disagree with my perspective are simple-minded.”
While I don’t think people should generally be forming strong opinions based on headlines, the CEO in question failed to provide any real justification for his bold claim. Given that the interests of pharma executives differ from those of the general public, there’s no reason such a statement should escape scrutiny.
The pharma exec in the article wasn't saying, "Please understand, this is a complex issue that shouldn't be considered in black and white terms." He said, using his own black-and-white thinking, (essentially) that he was virtuous for raising the price of the drug in question, claiming the moral high ground for himself. That's why his statement was so controversial.
The OP seemed to accept everything the pharma exec said at face value (seemingly, by virtue of his position as a pharma exec), while implying that the general public (at least those who were upset by the situation in question, and presumably not also experienced pharma execs) was incapable of complex thought regarding moral issues. To me, anyway, it sounded more like they were saying, "this guy's right and all you angry folks shouldn't be so simple-minded" than "hey, let's be reasonable here."
Of course, I could be completely misconstruing the OP's point. I'm not on any social media, and I generally shy away from the 24-hour "news" cycle, so I'm probably less sensitive to so-called outrage culture than most...
Actually, per the article, he justifies by the jobs he provides and the research his company does.
That may or may not be true of course, but he does say it.
I'm not even saying the pharma exec is wrong for what he did, but he clearly hired his employees and conducted research before jacking up the price of a drug that was approved by the FDA before he was born, so...
I would go one step further. Most people don't have any unified framework at all for making moral decisions. It is mostly a disparate patchwork of religious parables, quotations from famous historical figures, and the laws/constitution of the country they live in. All mixed together with their "gut feelings" that ultimately decides which of the above sometimes contradictory principles should take precedence under a given scenario.
For instance, most people would read the above headline and declare that life is sacrosanct and should take precedence over greed every time. And then you ask them how they would morally justify spending $10k on travel expenses or eating out, when they can instead use that money to save a human life - and I've yet to hear someone give a good answer to that question.
I know philosophy students who have literally decided that "there's no such thing as morality", because figuring it out seems completely impossible. I think that's the wrong approach. As difficult and unappealing as it may seem, I think it behooves us to find and practice a consistent and comprehensive moral framework. The one I believe and endorse is Utilitarianism, as controversial as that may be. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I at least hope they will try to find their own answer.
TFA says he says this, but it looks like PR spin to me. He is refuting the word choice, but his underlying point is the same.
"Mulye went on to say he "nearly went bankrupt" twice and that he lost money after buying a plant in Ohio, which he said employs just under 100 people. "
"Is it moral for me to lose money?" Mulye asked. "If I don't make money, then I can't create those jobs. And where does the money go when I make it? It goes back into research and hiring new people right here in the US."
Probably closer to the truth that it goes to shareholders, but, okay.
I mean the guy literally says why they're doing it (there's available needy-people margin to cash in on), and it's not to ensure they don't run out of a limited supply. But keep carrying that water for them for free if you want, I guess.
he does not say this, and i dont think thats a reasonable interpretation.
>But keep carrying that water for them for free if you want, I guess.
i dont know what this means.
I think one of the true challenges in front of us is figuring out a way one can signal how much they truly need something in a trustworthy, reliable way, without having to burn their own resources. Because that's what your answer is - prioritizing the need by checking who can afford to burn the most money. It's not paying for water, it's paying for a place on an ordinal scale.
This is just the neo-liberal mantra of "the markets are always right". That's fine when it's just rich people playing with their spare change. But when markets impact the whole of society it becomes a moral problem, currently we are letting city traders and investors make moral decisions for entire nations.
On the other end of the scale, if your survival depends on getting water but you don't have readily available money, do you deserve to die because your "use" of the water is not the "best"?
Income and wealth inequality prevent this from ever being a reality.
HBU analyses work on real estate and businesses. Doing one on a staple good with inelastic demand is complete insanity.
Rising prices bring in supply. Rationing encourages over consumption and black market trade -- if there's a price ceiling you better believe I'm going to max out my gasoline ration whether I need it or not.
The price only gates off who can do such a thing.
> Rising prices bring in supply.
Supply chains are not so flexible that they can react appropriately to such sudden spikes in demand, no matter the price set. See the recent debacle around video cards and crypto currencies. The insanely high prices set by first party suppliers couldn't stop them from being constantly sold out.
It also didn't result in increased production of video cards, since the companies (correctly) predicted that the demand would not last. Prices were never driven down below their pre-crypto levels.
In the end, the only effect is that an average person was unable to obtain a video card at an affordable price for a year or so.
Follow The Money.
> "Moral" is a subtly toxic word because it has some vague equivalence with being nice
Words have different meanings. Morality isn't a homogeneous thing and differs among people. It's entirely possible to have a moral philosophy that allows you to be nice _to the world_. This is exactly the Kantian outlook: "will[ing] that [actions] should become a universal law".
Using your example: Getting the sailor in trouble wouldn't be alright. You would be treating him as a means to an end. That is, you're treating him as a mean to your own salvation, rather than his. So the "moral" thing wouldn't be to simply snitch, because you would get stitches. You should help to ensure that 1) He feels guilt[0] and 2) His family doesn't endure unnecessary pain[1].
[0]: Anything else would be treating him as a means to an end, e.g rehabilitation (the alleged good of the criminal) or deterrence (alleged good to society).
[1]: Anything else would be treating them as a means to an end (his punishment).
Happens here in FL every ... single ... time ... a hurricane or TS comes. Gas too. People start filling 5 and 10 gallon drums. Nothing like a natural disaster to bring out true selfishness. Of course, on the flip side, there's nothing like a natural disaster to bring out true selflessness, either.
https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/1212394251872399361
The core idea is that government monopolies are an incentive from the government to get something done. Instead of paying companies directly, a monopoly is granted; the monopoly rents, i.e. the higher prices from reduced competition, are then foisted on the public to pay off over the duration of the patent. Structurally, this is like a debt with repayments over time.
Firstly, the government doesn't choose what it pays to have done. Cancer cure? Patentable. Slide-to-unlock? Patentable. Dildo harness? Also patentable.
Second, with patents if development fails the government pays nothing. Whereas if they funded development directly, failed projects would be paid for by the taxpayer.
Third, patents are a flat tax on people who use a development, whereas direct development is a progressive tax on people whether they use the development or not.
Fourth, patents can pull money from foreign countries into your country.
This week it's the story about how insulin was $20 a month when I was in high school, I remember it well because I had two friends who needed insulin and they complained about this $20 constantly.
Americans under a certain age just flat out refuse to believe that it was ever possible to get important medicine that cheaply. I've had people call me a liar and been branded with various political slurs for making this $20 claim. It's hilarious.
That's $120/month in modern dollars
https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/history-of-insulin-c...
"In comments to CNN on Wednesday, Mulye said he was not quoted accurately. "The word morality was used in the conversation, but not in the context of price increases," he said."
That's amongst other choice quotes like "who's going to create these jobs" (as he employs 100 people, supposedly, I'm not even convinced that number is legitimate but it's definitely a ceiling). Guy sounds like a real piece of work living in a mess he's creating.
"The Financial Times said Wednesday it sticks by its story."
0: https://www.ft.com/content/48b0ce2c-b544-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085...
> Mulye noted his drug is the generic version and less expensive than the branded version, listed at $2800. "I'm being vilified for no good reason," he said.
Otherwise disincentivize companies limited by shares from being a part of these transactions
"I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can," Mulye told the Financial Times, "to sell the product for the highest price."
He's practically trolling people with the memtion of Shkreli.
Unless the company has different goals (like ethical, or helping the ill, etc.) by default it is to make money.
> "I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can," Mulye told the Financial Times, "to sell the product for the highest price."
For bonus points, it's coupled with
> "I agree with Martin Shkreli that when he raised the price of his drug he was within his rights because he had to reward his shareholders," Mulye was quoted as saying.
and
> "I said I have to raise prices when I can -- how to get the best prices for my products, so that I can survive," Mulye told CNN. "It is about the survival of the business. It has nothing to do with morality."
Frankly, every quote of the guy confirms further that he is a troll trying to emulate Trump's arrogance and stir shit up.
I'm not investing into company to make the world a better place, I vote and lobby government for this.
Also, as long a drug companies customers are mostly health insurances and not the final users, you will never get real competition.
The only thing happening here is that 2 people per decade actually talk about what they’re doing and receive flak for that when it is clear it is the only practice in this market. If the reaction reflects how people feel then disincentivize companies limited by shares from being a part of these transactions
See https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/nostrum-ceo-says-he-wasnt-de...
>But Mulye disagrees. He said new FDA guidance on elemental impurities in medicines required a reformulation of nitrofurantoin, so Nostrum pulled the product out of the market while it implemented the necessary changes. It plans to re-introduce it "shortly," Mulye said.
>"After the regulation came into effect, I don't think anybody manufactured the product," Mulye said. "That's going to create exclusivity in the market. Then the price goes up."
If the government was to set up its own insulin manufacturing plant and sell the insulin at 20 dollars a vial, every private manufacturer would drop their prices to match by nightfall the next day. Let’s not act like this is a confusing or unsolvable problem. This is a trivially simple problem with several perfectly obvious solutions.
EDIT: Hmm, apparently I've waded into a political minefield here. I was posting a theoretical question because I was curious... The price change is so large. What is stopping another company from coming in and eating lunch? Obviously there's a bit of a regulatory moat, but for that kind of margin, it seems surmountable.
Collusion seems unlikely between two parties. It's simply unnecessary. Adding a third competitor seems like it would resolve things.
They are also basically under the radar in the stream of third party companies 'providing benefits'.
In a free market the rational way this would play out is original manufacturer runs wild with their monopoly until a generic is made and undercuts them, they then in turn lower their prices to compete.
The only way I see the current situation playing out is with some kind of pricing collusion between the two manufacturers.
Yes, there are multiple problems with the healthcare industry, and I'm aware what I'm describing doesn't solve all of them.
We need to have a new social contract that prohibits profiting from suffering.