Hacker News Reader

Comment by rahimnathwani | Hacker News Reader

AIUI, because they let the patent expire, the drug was not subject to price regulation by the government. So they could charge whatever.

And during most of that time, they were still protected by 'data exclusivity' which means that any generic producer could not get approved without doing their own clinical trials, until 8 years had passed.

So they gave up some period of exclusivity in return for being able to charge a higher price when they still had a monopoly.

View on HN

The price in Canada is ~$175 USD month for name brand Ozempic where I am with no coupons, or other discounts. I see prices in the US around $800+/month.

That is significantly cheaper than the US, and cheaper than other GLP-1 class drugs up here, arguably reasonable. Is the supposition that they would have been forced to charge even less? If so, why are their competitors who kept their patents not charging more?

Counterpoint: Mounjaro/Tirzepatide did keep their patent protection. They are able to, and do, charge significantly more.

The US price for name brand is around $500/mo. More than $175, but not $800.

Only now at Costco. It used to be much higher

No. Directly from Novo, prior to the Costco announcement.

The only thing that changes with Costco is you can get the auto-injector version for that price, instead of vials.

I always thought they had auto-injectors

500 usd = 700 cad. So probably more an imprecise currency issue.

Everyone I know taking these is buying generic compounded formulas. Insurance mostly doesn’t cover it so the go for the cheaper options.

yes, the US govt is being shockingly lax in its IP enforcement here. i suspect it would be much harder to acquire if ozempic/wegovy were produced by an American company

That doesn't figure into the pricing strategy or giving away patent protection in Canada in 2018 as far as I can tell?

Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently, so I assume you are talking about the US? Compounding Ozempic in the US wasn't a thing in 2018 when this patent was released in Canada, so not sure what one has to do with the other.

What are you getting at in reference to the argument that the patent was released intentionally in order to charge a higher price?

> Compounding isn't allowed in Canada

I'm not sure why you think that, compounding is allowed, I live right be a compounding pharmacy. And confirmed it's legal through google.

I should be more specific. Compounding Ozempic isn't allowed since it is not considered to be a shortage anymore by Health Canada.

Compounding isn't some shady enterprise. Its a standard medical use case. I have to use metronidozol cream on my face, but I'm allergic to some preservatives, so a compounding pharmacy makes a version of metronidozol cream without my allergens.

It's also relatively common for toddlers who need special doses, or for people who can't swallow pills and need liquid formulations.

Compounding is normal.

My comment was in reference to compounding for straight Ozempic prescriptions, which is currently not allowed in Canada since it is not in shortage.

I was making no judgement on compounding generally.

Yes I’m in the USA. I just mentioned that because nobody I know is paying $800/mo. They are buying compounded injections online.

roughly how much are they paying, then?

I pay about $300 for a “one month supply”, which lasts me around 12 weeks.

Probably half that, or less.

> Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently

How does this work? Why/when would compounding not be allowed?

If health Canada determines there is a shortage, compounding is allowed. Health Canada has determined that there is no longer a shortage.

Does the government/medical insurance subsidise that price though?

No, with drug patents the price is the average of a basket of similar countries, including the US. There is bulk buying for some medications by governments, but it depends.

Most people are using private drug insurance in Canada.

>And during most of that time

Most of what time? The patent just expired a few months ago. Generics are now ramping up because the patent expired, not because of some hypothetical eight year clinical trials. And for that matter, generics of existing ingredients and dosages do not have to repeat clinical trials anyways, which is one of the big reasons generics are a lot less expensive.

This hypothesis seems retconned and completely at odds with the actual facts. Not least that there has been absolutely nothing exceptional about the pricing of their product in Canada, which has always been one of the cheaper pricings worldwide.

This article is saying that the patent elapsed in 2018 because thy didn’t pay the $250 to renew the patent. Instead they relied on “data exclusivity” which means their trial data is exclusively theirs and anyone who wants to sell in Canada must first run safety trials of their own at a huge expense. It’s just as good as a patent but has a shorter window of exclusivity.

> Instead they relied on “data exclusivity” which means their trial data is exclusively theirs and anyone who wants to sell in Canada must first run safety trials of their own at a huge expense.

Sounds like potentially a good thing?

Thanks, can you point to where you found this info?

Sorry, pieced together from different sources.

I am not an expert.

Here's one about the price control on patented drugs: https://www.torys.com/our-latest-thinking/publications/2024/...

See the comments on that article where a few people have pointed this out.

Seems like a plausible explanation, the government should reform the price regulation laws to avoid this endrun around price controls.

> AIUI

As I understand it?

TYNIU

As I Understand It

Reply on news.ycombinator.com