You must log in or register to comment.
Just a datapoint here: The patent expires Dec 6th 2031. After that date is when we would see unlicensed generics.
edit: corrected wrong millenium
3031
Do you mean 2031? Because I’m fairly sure our stupidity will lead to us blowing up the planet way before 3031.
I’d be surprised if we make it to 2031.
thanks . Corrected.
At which point they will most likely tweak a minor ingredient or process to evergreen the patent, preventing generics for another few years.
John Green talks about it for J&J’s tuberculosis medication (I recommend the whole video, but if you want the short version, watch the first 30 seconds, and then from 2:20 to 3:00, then 3:45 to 4:15).
In the case above, a bunch of public pressure encouraged J&J to yield, which is excellent, but I have to wonder how many other medications fall under the same umbrella and how many people needlessly suffer or die because of a lack of access to medication that can be produced at a low cost and could be affordable.
Anyway, that’s beside the point, which is that it appears that the patent system can evidently be gamed, and the expiry date may not manifest the effect that it should have in the way that it should.
Standard stuff - fuck Jazz Pharma for doing exactly that - but one only has to convince one doctor to ignore the sales reps and write for the new generic.
BTW heads up to anyone here thinking about taking meds like this for weight management or to avoid diabetes, the way I have come to understand it is they basically cause diabetes as a part of their function, you’ll be bound to it after that point and given the backorder issues these meds have as well as how they can be dangerous to just quit them I’d personally avoid them. You need to be tapered off and you are likely to return to levels you had previously or worse. Now I am not clinically trained but I work with medicine, with other people that are, and this is what I gathered in regards to these meds.
Basically, stick to phentermine and etc.
This will be unpopular, but a new drug costs a fuck-ton of money to bring to market. It might only cost a few dollars to produce but it certainly didn’t cost that to develop. Yeah, the price is excessive but it certainly couldn’t sell for $1 right now.
It’s really easy to ignore that and think only about the material cost of production. They also presumably want to see some profit to fuel future R&D.
For insulin, there is no excuse. Its development is long since paid for. A moderate mark up is acceptable to incentive the companies to produce it and maybe pay for R&D of some other drug but beyond that it is just greed.
The companies have a moral responsibility to make life saving drugs affordable, but they also need a revenue stream to develop them in the first place.
I know someone will take exception and talk about ceo bonuses etc. Let me get in first and say I agree. They shouldn’t get millions in bonuses at the expense of people forced to pay exorbitant costs to them just to keep on living.
They also presumably want to see some profit to fuel future R&D.
A lot of these companies spend more on marketing than R&D. If they want help lowering their costs, we can ban pharmaceutical advertisements like the rest of the world does.
Testing costs prevent drugs that will save a few lives from being tested. Instead, hair growth, penis pills, and now weight loss drugs are being developed. A million people with smaller issues are more profitable than one person with a severe issue.
Drugs should be developed and tested through public private partnerships with universities. That could be paired with limitations on drug prices. We shouldn’t even trust drug companies to do the testing. That would take a long way a lot of their costs. I doubt they’d like it though.
I forget about the marketing part because here, there isn’t any direct marketing to the public. I always thought it was odd on US TV, “tell you doctor to prescribe…” No. The trained professional should be deciding which drug to prescribe.
Marketing to doctors also is a thing I guess, but there is some insulation from that in a nationalised health care system.
I often read arstechnica.com and one thing that annoys me is I often see prescription ads on their site. Most of the time I don’t even know the illness they are trying to cure. Honestly I wonder how effective those ads are. Like who goes to a doctor like “I saw this ad for miracle pill and people at the end were happy. Give me that pill” and the doctor doesn’t go “that’s for an enlarged liver which you don’t have… Why do you want that pill?”
The handful of meds I’ve asked for after having seen any advertising at all, the advertising was incidental. I followed Sunosi for a decade before it was approved and I asked for it. The ads weren’t a part of it.
I followed the eight hour version of sodium oxybate for about the same amount of time, and ended up disillusioned with it because of the risk of getting no fucking sleep at all if the first dose failed.
Patients who are able absolutely should follow the promising compounds under development. I had a similar experience with provigil, waaaay back when there was nothing else except methylphenidate.
DTC advertising needs to go away.
Patients need to be more informed about the pipeline and current studies.
Both can be true.
Don’t forget some marketing costs are allowed to count as R&D.
Indeed, but they could stick a couple 100 percent markup on it and make their money back.
20000% is obscene.
They also often get a lot of public funding.
Absolutely. It is obscene and I’m not trying to defend that My point was just that saying I could make it for this amount means nothing if I didn’t have to pay to develop it as well.
