CEO of UHG Shot and Killed in NYC - WTF is wrong with you New York

[Brisketexan 107009]

I do love the “American exceptionalism” that dominated the discussion. Like no other country or system has introduced or innovated a kajillion elements of life-saving medical care and the like.
Yes, the world would still have amazing, innovative care and treatment WITHOUT massive profit-taking in the US.
And…employers are skimming money off the top too? WTF are you talking about? I’m an employer, we provide healthcare (we have a broker, we pick a plan, we pay for it). It’s a cost center for us, and only a cost center. I don’t get what the hell you are telling about, but I assure you that I don’t get an extra check at the end of the year if we fuck over enough of our employees by denying them care. Sure, our loss ratio affects our collective premiums, but…we then pay them, pretty much whatever they are.

[safe sex 12042]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

ts a bit like tragedy of the commons that everyone in the healthcare industry is working to extract as much money as possible from the system.

That is simply not true.

[Bevo 13923]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes, the world would still have amazing, innovative care and treatment WITHOUT massive profit-taking in the US.

This is false. Pharmaceuticals and advanced medical devices exist because of the US patent system, US investors in biotech, the money the US government and companies throw into basic research and the profits that companies can achieve in the US by developing medical improvements and breakthroughs.

[Captainant 28596]

4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

This is false. Pharmaceuticals and advanced medical devices exist because of the US patent system, US investors in biotech, the money the US government and companies throw into basic research and the profits that companies can achieve in the US by developing medical improvements and breakthroughs.

You'd think an industry that sits on top of the Hippocratic Oath would care more about patient wellbeing than profits. Everything starts and ends with investors. That guarantees that patients will never be the highest priority of that system. Patients have no means to influence the incentive structure that drives all of this ugliness and denial of care.

[royiv 9873]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

A doctor isn't getting paid $4,000 but Kelsey Seybold is. That is my entire point. The doctors and nurses and patients - the raison d'etre for this whole thing - are at the end of the whip and subject to whatever comes from on high, and the healthcare industry is holding the other end.

FWIW, Kelsey-Seybold is owned by United Healthcare.

[Bevo 13923]

32 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You'd think an industry that sits on top of the Hippocratic Oath would care more about patient wellbeing than profits. Everything starts and ends with investors. That guarantees that patients will never be the highest priority of that system. Patients have no means to influence the incentive structure that drives all of this ugliness and denial of care.

 

Profits in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries leads to patient well-being. Without money, there is some research but there is no development and no commercialization.

[Brisketexan 107009]

This is false. Pharmaceuticals and advanced medical devices exist because of the US patent system, US investors in biotech, the money the US government and companies throw into basic research and the profits that companies can achieve in the US by developing medical improvements and breakthroughs.

Wait…this post isn’t satire?
Seriously? Europe, for example….hasn’t provided any major advances in pharmaceuticals and devices? China, Japan, Korea…nothing from them? No question American advancements are a big player, but 1) we’re IT, and 2) other countries wouldn’t have undertaken similar efforts if we weren’t a major player?
Jesus, the nearsightedness of Americans is breathtaking.

[Bevo 13923]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Wait…this post isn’t satire?
Seriously? Europe, for example….hasn’t provided any major advances in pharmaceuticals and devices? China, Japan, Korea…nothing from them? No question American advancements are a big player, but 1) we’re IT, and 2) other countries wouldn’t have undertaken similar efforts if we weren’t a major player?
Jesus, the nearsightedness of Americans is breathtaking.

We are talking recent history, right? Because sure you could talk about Louis Pasteur and the Pasteur Institute, but that was many years ago. Now we are talking about multinational companies with headquarters in places like Basel and London and Paris and New York. But if you look at the revenue of any of them, half their worldwide revenue comes from the US. And that equates to about 80% of their profits. And the biotech industry is even more US centric. University research is a little more diverse, but NIH funding pretty much dwarfs research funding from other countries at $45 billion. So yeah, the development of the worlds' medical advances are mainly derived from the US. Perhaps you should do some research before arguing with medical experts. Jesus, the arrogance of some attorneys is breathtaking.

[Captainant 28596]

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

But if you look at the revenue of any of them, half their worldwide revenue comes from the US. And that equates to about 80% of their profits. And the biotech industry is even more US centric. University research is a little more diverse, but NIH funding pretty much dwarfs research funding from other countries at $45 billion.

Yeah they have more revenue from the US because there's no laws against gouging sick people for care, like there are in Europe. And if most the research funding is coming from NIH - the government - I'm not sure how we NEED to be extracting profits from sick people in order to have medical advances

[TwiceHorn 32104]

I definitely think there is more of a role for capitalism in drug and device development than in more core aspects of healthcare like providers and facilities.

That doesn't mean largely unrestrained capitalism as currently practiced by pharma, as an example.  There's a whole wealth of medical technology that we never hear much about, such as imaging and devices, where a whole lot of innovation occurs.  Shit's expensive, but I'm not sure it's disproportionately so.  I used to do patents on surgical devices that seemed expensive af for single-use devices (few hundred bucks), but not totally outrageously so.

[Brian Fantana 6875]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Profits in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries leads to patient well-being. Without money, there is some research but there is no development and no commercialization.

This just screams someone trying to justify their own existence. Most pharmaceutical novel chemical compound research & development is funded by public money and undertaken by public institutions. Period. Pharmaceutical companies do not innovate, they iterate, and the public never sees any return on their investment other than having the privilege of paying them exorbitant prices for prescription drugs. Medical device development is not on the same shitlord tier as the pharmaceutical industry, but it is entirely dependent on a very broad and robust base of biomedical knowledge which is, again, almost entirely publicly funded and researched in public institutions.

[Gatorubet 30783]

7 hours ago, Bevo said:

Luigi is a murdering putz. Pick better heroes.

[Gatorubet 30783]

45 minutes ago, Bevo said:

We are talking recent history, right? Because sure you could talk about Louis Pasteur and the Pasteur Institute, but that was many years ago. Now we are talking about multinational companies with headquarters in places like Basel and London and Paris and New York. But if you look at the revenue of any of them, half their worldwide revenue comes from the US. And that equates to about 80% of their profits. And the biotech industry is even more US centric. University research is a little more diverse, but NIH funding pretty much dwarfs research funding from other countries at $45 billion. So yeah, the development of the worlds' medical advances are mainly derived from the US. Perhaps you should do some research before arguing with medical experts. Jesus, the arrogance of some attorneys is breathtaking.

it is fascinating to see somebody undertake such a screed and miss the entirety of the substance of the discussion.

[Fudge Nuggets 19473]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You paid $20.

And a career’s worth of monthly premiums.  Let’s not gloss over that part.

[Fudge Nuggets 19473]

45 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And if most the research funding is coming from NIH - the government - I'm not sure how we NEED to be extracting profits from sick people in order to have medical advances

Ding ding ding.  

[Bevo 13923]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I definitely think there is more of a role for capitalism in drug and device development than in more core aspects of healthcare like providers and facilities.

That doesn't mean largely unrestrained capitalism as currently practiced by pharma, as an example.  There's a whole wealth of medical technology that we never hear much about, such as imaging and devices, where a whole lot of innovation occurs.  Shit's expensive, but I'm not sure it's disproportionately so.  I used to do patents on surgical devices that seemed expensive af for single-use devices (few hundred bucks), but not totally outrageously so.

A 6 Tesla MRI machine is up to $7M and a stent can cost up to $5000ea and an anesthesia workstation is probably $40K and a home dialysis machine is $45K. But the simple stuff like sutures aren't that cheap either.

[Bevo 13923]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Yeah they have more revenue from the US because there's no laws against gouging sick people for care, like there are in Europe. And if most the research funding is coming from NIH - the government - I'm not sure how we NEED to be extracting profits from sick people in order to have medical advances

Or another way to look at it is that the US consumer pays for the world's medical advances.

[royiv 9873]

28 minutes ago, Bevo said:

A 6 Tesla MRI machine is up to $7M and a stent can cost up to $5000ea and an anesthesia workstation is probably $40K and a home dialysis machine is $45K. But the simple stuff like sutures aren't that cheap either.

Not that they’re cheap, but no one pays sticker for imaging equipment. I’ve negotiated deals with GE that had 60% discounts off of list price. The fact that they can offer those kinds of discounts should tell you a little about the mark-ups on those products.

[Bevo 13923]

5 minutes ago, royiv said:

Not that they’re cheap, but no one pays sticker for imaging equipment. I’ve negotiated deals with GE that had 60% discounts off of list price. The fact that they can offer those kinds of discounts should tell you a little about the mark-ups on those products.

And they kind of screw the developing universities. Univ. of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin and the Medical College of Wisconsin together pretty much invented modern MRI machines. GE, Siemens, and Toshiba license some of the tech and steal some of the tech and none of them enforce the patents. More important, GE throws some money to the researchers and the researchers keep the university from enforcing the patents. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I do love the “American exceptionalism” that dominated the discussion. Like no other country or system has introduced or innovated a kajillion elements of life-saving medical care and the like.
Yes, the world would still have amazing, innovative care and treatment WITHOUT massive profit-taking in the US.
And…employers are skimming money off the top too? WTF are you talking about? I’m an employer, we provide healthcare (we have a broker, we pick a plan, we pay for it). It’s a cost center for us, and only a cost center. I don’t get what the hell you are telling about, but I assure you that I don’t get an extra check at the end of the year if we fuck over enough of our employees by denying them care. Sure, our loss ratio affects our collective premiums, but…we then pay them, pretty much whatever they are.

Huh, no one is a saying that employers are taking a cut. But employers are the ones who advise insurance administrators on the coverage. They’re always conveniently forgotten about when it comes to denials.

[Bevo 13923]

5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

This just screams someone trying to justify their own existence. Most pharmaceutical novel chemical compound research & development is funded by public money and undertaken by public institutions. Period. Pharmaceutical companies do not innovate, they iterate, and the public never sees any return on their investment other than having the privilege of paying them exorbitant prices for prescription drugs. Medical device development is not on the same shitlord tier as the pharmaceutical industry, but it is entirely dependent on a very broad and robust base of biomedical knowledge which is, again, almost entirely publicly funded and researched in public institutions.

 

Wrong, but I worked in the biotech industry for 15 years in licensing, business development, marketing management and consulting. So, I have enough experience to be considered an expert in university technology transfer, basic research, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies and immunohistochemistry diagnostic companies (not much experience in medical equipment). And now I have 15 years of experience in patient care. Just since we are discussing the issue, besides being a consumer, what is your experience?

[Bevo 13923]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

And if most the research funding is coming from NIH - the government - I'm not sure how we NEED to be extracting profits from sick people in order to have medical advances

Ding ding ding.  

 

For the most part, research stops at research. As @TwiceHorn would attest, that doesn't help consumers. Ideas need to be developed and then commercialized. Those commercialized products are what we consume. There are tons of good ideas out there. Only the few that are well-funded, developed, and commercialized make it to market.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

For the most part, research stops at research. As @TwiceHorn would attest, that doesn't help consumers. Ideas need to be developed and then commercialized. Those commercialized products are what we consume. There are tons of good ideas out there. Only the few that are well-funded, developed, and commercialized make it to market.

I can't cite any sources, but yeah, that's my sense. University research provides basic ideas, that usually need to be refined into something commercially practicable and manufactured.

[Anastasis 23717]

The academics lead the way with foundational research that discovers novel drug targets and the biological pathways, the mix is more even at the translational level but probably tilted towards commercial, and pharma absolutely dominates at drug discovery and clearing the regulatory and bring to market hurdles. There is a role for each. The financing system, including price discovery and market willingness to pay, is the primary problem. To many clouds that obscure efficient market operation. 

[Gatorubet 30783]

20 hours ago, safe sex said:

Austin still has it from time to time

 

Well, Stephen F. Austin‘s Pilgrim ancestor, Richard Austin, came to the New World in 1638 aboard the good ship “Bevis”.      I’m not sure, but I think that this may account for a lot of things.

[aggie08 21848]

14 hours ago, Bevo said:

Luigi is a murdering putz. Pick better heroes.

Yeah, but he's cute tho.

[chainsaw 10307]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

market operation.

There's the culprit right there.

Assess people's needs, produce what they need, and give it to them. Don't need middlemen or profiteers for that. Compensate people fairly for their time, just as we do with our public servants. Whatever the costs are to the taxpayer, the social benefits outweigh them.

[shakahorn 1660]

23 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

Profits in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries leads to patient well-being. Without money, there is some research but there is no development and no commercialization.

I hear some variation of this argument often "well we have to charge so much because we have to pay for R&D."

I'm no accountant, but R&D comes before profit.  Top line revenue - costs which include R&D = profit.  So their exorbitant profits come AFTER whatever money they have put into R&D.  They could lower their profits by literally billions, still make a pretty penny, and still pay whatever they're paying for R&D.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

31 minutes ago, shakahorn said:

I hear some variation of this argument often "well we have to charge so much because we have to pay for R&D."

I'm no accountant, but R&D comes before profit.  Top line revenue - costs which include R&D = profit.  So their exorbitant profits come AFTER whatever money they have put into R&D.  They could lower their profits by literally billions, still make a pretty penny, and still pay whatever they're paying for R&D.

You can make this argument about any business. Lower your prices and be satisfied with lower profits. 

[shakahorn 1660]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You can make this argument about any business. Lower your prices and be satisfied with lower profits. 

That's true, but the point that I hear trying to be made is 'prices are so high because of R&D.' No, prices are so high because you are not satisfied with lower profits. 

[pearlandhorn 3343]

2 hours ago, shakahorn said:

I hear some variation of this argument often "well we have to charge so much because we have to pay for R&D."

I'm no accountant, but R&D comes before profit.  Top line revenue - costs which include R&D = profit.  So their exorbitant profits come AFTER whatever money they have put into R&D.  They could lower their profits by literally billions, still make a pretty penny, and still pay whatever they're paying for R&D.

 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You can make this argument about any business. Lower your prices and be satisfied with lower profits. 

 

1 hour ago, shakahorn said:

That's true, but the point that I hear trying to be made is 'prices are so high because of R&D.' No, prices are so high because you are not satisfied with lower profits. 

R&D, specifically with pharma, is a bit more complicated than that. From an accounting standpoint.

[Gatorubet 30783]

Quote

Defense fund established by supporters of suspected CEO killer Luigi Mangione nears $200K

https://abc7ny.com/post/unitedhealthcare-ceo-murder-latest-defense-fund-established-supporters-suspected-killer-luigi-mangione/15659182/

[Bevo 13923]

2 hours ago, shakahorn said:

I hear some variation of this argument often "well we have to charge so much because we have to pay for R&D."

I'm no accountant, but R&D comes before profit.  Top line revenue - costs which include R&D = profit.  So their exorbitant profits come AFTER whatever money they have put into R&D.  They could lower their profits by literally billions, still make a pretty penny, and still pay whatever they're paying for R&D.

Generics don’t make the largest companies profitable. In fact, I don’t know where things stand now, but 20 years ago, most pharmaceutical companies divested their OTC products and generics were an insignificant portion of sales. Basically all of their profits come from patented products and pharmaceutical companies attempt numerous workarounds to try to extend their patents as long as possible. Some of that has changed more recently due to the difficulty for companies to get generic biologics approved by the FDA, but still pharmaceutical companies don’t care about their generic products.

All pharmaceutical profits are derived from innovation whether new targets or simply improved side effect profiles, method of delivery, etc.
 

Anyway, it stands to reason that pharmaceutical companies strive to keep their product pipelines full. So, what do you think would happen if the industry were less profitable, had PEs similar to commodities, and earned exactly what the government thought was their right to earn?

First, we would see good things - smaller sales forces, lower drug prices, less advertising. But later we would also see more mergers and acquisitions as the industry continued to mature. And we would see a decrease in development as the return on investment would justify fewer innovative, riskier products. 
 

Does this mean that innovation would die? Of course not. It would only slow down initially. However, in this scenario where government controls pharmaceutical prices, what happens as the government still has shortfalls in what it has budgeted to pay for pharmaceuticals? Well of course it would lower pharmaceutical prices even more. At some point without profits, development of pharmaceuticals comes to a crawl verses the rapid innovations that have occurred since penicillin was commercialized during WW2. 

[Captainant 28596]

Lulz of fucking course. Luigi's judge is married to a former Pfizer exec and personally holds hundreds of thousands in healthcare company stocks

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigi-mangione-judge-married-to-former

Classic.

[Chopper 17449]

On 12/22/2024 at 2:14 PM, Bevo said:

Or another way to look at it is that the US consumer pays for the world's medical advances.

Or another way to look at it is that the US citizens -- and only US citizens -- are exploited by big pharma to pay for their extensive worldwide profits.

 

20 hours ago, shakahorn said:

I hear some variation of this argument often "well we have to charge so much because we have to pay for R&D."

I'm no accountant, but R&D comes before profit.  Top line revenue - costs which include R&D = profit.  So their exorbitant profits come AFTER whatever money they have put into R&D.  They could lower their profits by literally billions, still make a pretty penny, and still pay whatever they're paying for R&D.

R&D expense in the industry averages 17% of revenue per investopedia and 20% per Statista.

 

16 hours ago, Bevo said:

Generics don’t make the largest companies profitable. In fact, I don’t know where things stand now, but 20 years ago, most pharmaceutical companies divested their OTC products and generics were an insignificant portion of sales. Basically all of their profits come from patented products and pharmaceutical companies attempt numerous workarounds to try to extend their patents as long as possible. Some of that has changed more recently due to the difficulty for companies to get generic biologics approved by the FDA, but still pharmaceutical companies don’t care about their generic products.

All pharmaceutical profits are derived from innovation whether new targets or simply improved side effect profiles, method of delivery, etc.
 

Anyway, it stands to reason that pharmaceutical companies strive to keep their product pipelines full. So, what do you think would happen if the industry were less profitable, had PEs similar to commodities, and earned exactly what the government thought was their right to earn?

First, we would see good things - smaller sales forces, lower drug prices, less advertising. But later we would also see more mergers and acquisitions as the industry continued to mature. And we would see a decrease in development as the return on investment would justify fewer innovative, riskier products. 
 

Does this mean that innovation would die? Of course not. It would only slow down initially. However, in this scenario where government controls pharmaceutical prices, what happens as the government still has shortfalls in what it has budgeted to pay for pharmaceuticals? Well of course it would lower pharmaceutical prices even more. At some point without profits, development of pharmaceuticals comes to a crawl verses the rapid innovations that have occurred since penicillin was commercialized during WW2. 

Good lord. I'm pretty sure insulin is OTC but the pharma cartel charges some people $100 a month for just that one med. And that's just one example. The game has changed in OTC and that's one reason why Mark Cuban can make a profit selling some generics at a barebones price. 

"All pharmaceutical profits are derived from innovation whether new targets or simply improved side effect profiles, method of delivery, etc."

Literally lol. You are so convinced at the thoroughness of your own expertise but you really should have a complete re-think. 
 

Edited 18 hours ago by Chopper

[Chopper 17449]

This thread could use a name change to reflect reality -- WTF are you doing health insurance industry?

[Bevo 13923]

4 hours ago, Chopper said:

Or another way to look at it is that the US citizens -- and only US citizens -- are exploited by big pharma to pay for their extensive worldwide profits.

 

R&D expense in the industry averages 17% of revenue per investopedia and 20% per Statista.

 

Good lord. I'm pretty sure insulin is OTC but the pharma cartel charges some people $100 a month for just that one med. And that's just one example. The game has changed in OTC and that's one reason why Mark Cuban can make a profit selling some generics at a barebones price. 

"All pharmaceutical profits are derived from innovation whether new targets or simply improved side effect profiles, method of delivery, etc."

Literally lol. You are so convinced at the thoroughness of your own expertise but you really should have a complete re-think. 
 

 

Insulin basically comes from three manufacturers who keep prices high. They have switched the market from less expensive human and animal insulins to more expensive insulin analogs. To combat the issue we need to get clinicians to prescribe lower-cost insulins. We also need to get biosimilar insulins through the FDA and figure out a way to get them distributed more efficiently. For every $100 spent on insulin, $40 goes to parties in the distribution chain. And finally, we need to figure out a way to address the patent system - the patent strategy to increase the patent life of a drug by filing additional patents I think is acceptable. But those additional patents probably should have shorter lifespans than the original patent. I don’t know how to do that but I’m sure @TwiceHorn has some ideas.

 

 

 

I’m stuck using a phone so I can’t give you actual links on where pharma makes their money. One fact I can recall though is that generic drugs account for ~90% of prescription drugs dispensed, but they account for only ~30% of total United States pharmaceutical expenditures. So basically most pharmaceutical revenue comes from branded products.

And, if you look at any annual report, it is pretty obvious that most of the profits come from their blockbusters still on patent. Also, notice all the price increases on those blockbusters which basically translates to pure profits for the pharma company in question. That can’t easily be done with generics. https://www.csrxp.org/big-pharma-earnings-watch-abbvie-amgen-and-gsk/
 

Edited 14 hours ago by Bevo

[Chopper 17449]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

And, if you look at any annual report, it is pretty obvious that most of the profits come from their blockbusters still on patent. Also, notice all the price increases on those blockbusters which basically translates to pure profits for the pharma company in question. That can’t easily be done with generics. https://www.csrxp.org/big-pharma-earnings-watch-abbvie-amgen-and-gsk/
 

There are multiple enormous scams going on between insurers and pharmaceutical companies. In one such scam the insurers own the pharmacy benefit managers. In many cases the prices FOR GENERICS your insurer will charge are multiple times higher than Mark Cuban's store. The only way to get a 3 months supply in most cases is to go through the PBM. If you want your med through a local pharm, it'll be the same high price and you'll have to go every month.

In another scam, the pharmaceutical company will offer a coupon for those high-priced, name brand medications you mention, then behind the scenes the pharma company and the insurer make their own deals with money changing hands that doesn't even show up on your insurance out of pocket. But employers and insureds are paying for their scam.

Another scam is when pharma makes a meaningless tweak to one of their patented meds and are thereby able to extend their patent and monopoly on a product.

It's touching that you're concerned about the profits of both big pharma and insurance companies but they are busy fucking you and the rest of us over every day 24x7.

[royiv 9873]

17 minutes ago, Chopper said:

There are multiple enormous scams going on between insurers and pharmaceutical companies. In one such scam the insurers own the pharmacy benefit managers. In many cases the prices FOR GENERICS your insurer will charge are multiple times higher than Mark Cuban's store. The only way to get a 3 months supply in most cases is to go through the PBM. If you want your med through a local pharm, it'll be the same high price and you'll have to go every month.

In another scam, the pharmaceutical company will offer a coupon for those high-priced, name brand medications you mention, then behind the scenes the pharma company and the insurer make their own deals with money changing hands that doesn't even show up on your insurance out of pocket. But employers and insureds are paying for their scam.

Another scam is when pharma makes a meaningless tweak to one of their patented meds and are thereby able to extend their patent and monopoly on a product.

It's touching that you're concerned about the profits of both big pharma and insurance companies but they are busy fucking you and the rest of us over every day 24x7.

Recently had my physician prescribe me a drug that I haven’t taken before so didn’t have price familiarity with it. This is an off patent drug and was filled with a generic. When I went to pick it up at Walgreens, the price was $141 through Express Scripts (owned by Cigna). I balked at the price and the cashier was able to adjust the price down to $29 by going through GoodRX instead of Express Scripts.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

13 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Another scam is when pharma makes a meaningless tweak to one of their patented meds and are thereby able to extend their patent and monopoly on a product.

 

Those days are pretty much over.  In 1995, we amended the patent laws so that most or all related applications expire at the same time, 20 years from their filing date.  Patents are also published at 18 months after filing, so earlier-filed patents become prior art against later filed.  

Patent term extensions are available when drugs experience delays in approval.  And FDA grants seven years of exclusivity upon approval, patents notwithstanding.

But, for the most part, drug patents expire 20 years from filing.

The other trick that is au courant is to package in some kind of single dose syringe or other package that is patented and for some dumb reason the drug in a vial never gets prescribed anymore.

[Bevo 13923]

2 hours ago, Chopper said:

It's touching that you're concerned about the profits of both big pharma and insurance companies

That isn’t true and if you spoke like that in public people would call you a prick. I was explaining the marketplace and you just want to whine and argue. 

[Chopper 17449]

1 hour ago, royiv said:

Recently had my physician prescribe me a drug that I haven’t taken before so didn’t have price familiarity with it. This is an off patent drug and was filled with a generic. When I went to pick it up at Walgreens, the price was $141 through Express Scripts (owned by Cigna). I balked at the price and the cashier was able to adjust the price down to $29 by going through GoodRX instead of Express Scripts.

GoodRX is built off the symptoms of a highly dysfunctional pharmacy/insurer system. The problem with it from the insured's side is that you're not able to use the insurance you're paying $5k a year for, and the money you spend doesn't count toward your deductible or OOP. A minor cost for an individual perhaps but it adds up for the insurers. 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Those days are pretty much over.  In 1995, we amended the patent laws so that most or all related applications expire at the same time, 20 years from their filing date.  Patents are also published at 18 months after filing, so earlier-filed patents become prior art against later filed.  

Patent term extensions are available when drugs experience delays in approval.  And FDA grants seven years of exclusivity upon approval, patents notwithstanding.

But, for the most part, drug patents expire 20 years from filing.

The other trick that is au courant is to package in some kind of single dose syringe or other package that is patented and for some dumb reason the drug in a vial never gets prescribed anymore.

My thoughts on this are, first, 20 years is a helluva long time and second, that pharmaceutical companies are using other schemes to allow them to extend patents - terminal disclaimers or patent thickets they're called. The FTC just withdrew a proposed rule that would've done something about those but -- to heavily summarize and editorialize -- realized it was pointless given the political/Supreme Court situation.

[Bevo 13923]

2 hours ago, royiv said:

Recently had my physician prescribe me a drug that I haven’t taken before so didn’t have price familiarity with it. This is an off patent drug and was filled with a generic. When I went to pick it up at Walgreens, the price was $141 through Express Scripts (owned by Cigna). I balked at the price and the cashier was able to adjust the price down to $29 by going through GoodRX instead of Express Scripts.

Yeah, unfortunately doctors don’t know the pricing of all the things they prescribe. I prescribed Minocycline in tablets (I think) and later found out that the capsules were $100 cheaper. 

[Chopper 17449]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

That isn’t true and if you spoke like that in public people would call you a prick. I was explaining the marketplace and you just want to whine and argue. 

Eh I am certainly a prick but today the MIL is at my house and well...

[Chopper 17449]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Yeah, unfortunately doctors don’t know the pricing of all the things they prescribe. I prescribed Minocycline in tablets (I think) and later found out that the capsules were $100 cheaper. 

Might need to call pharmacist Mark

forgot this

Edited 8 hours ago by Chopper

[TwiceHorn 32104]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Those days are pretty much over.  In 1995, we amended the patent laws so that most or all related applications expire at the same time, 20 years from their filing date.  Patents are also published at 18 months after filing, so earlier-filed patents become prior art against later filed.  

Patent term extensions are available when drugs experience delays in approval.  And FDA grants seven years of exclusivity upon approval, patents notwithstanding.

But, for the most part, drug patents expire 20 years from filing.

The other trick that is au courant is to package in some kind of single dose syringe or other package that is patented and for some dumb reason the drug in a vial never gets prescribed anymore.

I should add that's "earliest filing date."  So, you file a patent on the basic composition, then you add dosages, then you maybe add on some adjuvants or time-release compounds, or whatever.  All of those patents are going to expire on the same day, subject to patent term extensions.

Before 1995, those add-on patents would all be separate patents, with separate, later grant dates and a term running 17 years from that grant date.

There were some ways to keep the old law applicable to post 1996 filings, but those ran out after a couple of years.

Edited 8 hours ago by TwiceHorn

[royiv 9873]

11 minutes ago, Chopper said:

GoodRX is built off the symptoms of a highly dysfunctional pharmacy/insurer system. The problem with it from the insured's side is that you're not able to use the insurance you're paying $5k a year for, and the money you spend doesn't count toward your deductible or OOP. A minor cost for an individual perhaps but it adds up for the insurers. 

Yep. Since it was end of year and I’m nowhere near hitting my deductible (HDHP) or OOP, I didn’t give a shit and pocketed the $110 savings. 

[Chopper 17449]

If there are 10 different people in line at a pharmacy each with a script for the same medication, all 10 will pay a different price depending on their insurer and their particular plan. It's worse than airlines because there's zero transparency. We haven't even touched on the evil-ness of the drug formulary scam.

[Bullneck 19560]

[Chopper 17449]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I should add that's "earliest filing date."  So, you file a patent on the basic composition, then you add dosages, then you maybe add on some adjuvants or time-release compounds, or whatever.  All of those patents are going to expire on the same day, subject to patent term extensions.

But yes of course the pharmaceutical co is going to try to extend their patent. Typically based on an illusory improvement in the medication.

Edited 8 hours ago by Chopper