Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DUers angry at new Hepatitis C drug that costs less than 1/6 as much as a liver transplant
wordpress ^ | July 25, 2014 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on 07/25/2014 1:58:19 PM PDT by grundle

Democratic Underground posters get angry at new Hepatitis C drug that costs less than 1/6 as much as a liver transplant

Hepatitis C is a an infectious disease that, in the U.S., kills more people than AIDS.

Some patients require a liver transplant which costs an average of $577,000.

However, a new drug for the disease just came on the market. It’s called Sovaldi, and it costs $84,000 for a 12 week course of treatment.

Taking this drug lets patients avoid getting a liver transplant.

Those of us who understand math think that this is a wonderful thing. Spending $84,000 instead of $577,000 is a huge savings.

I think it’s great that this new drug has been invented.

However, for some weird reason which I do not understand, many of the people at Democratic Underground have nothing but hatred and contempt for Gilead Sciences, the company that invented this drug. In this thread, someone says:

“that’s just despicable… Big Pharma should be ashamed of itself.”

In this other thread, the following comments were made:

“That is utterly obscene…. Remarkable greed.”

“Disgusting and obscene!”

“holding the ill hostage….criminal”

“Bloodsuckers. Put them in the stockades and offer them Freedom for a price.”

“‘Get a rope!’ I mean seriously, what do these monsters have to do?”

“Those behind this sort of maneuver are mass murderers. Using price to deny life saving drugs is no different that standing people against a wall and shooting them, except that there’s no current profit incentive to do that or they’d find some way to do it now.”

“people will die due to no access”

“Big Pharma = criminal enterprises!”

The people making those comments have zero understanding of or appreciation for how incredibly hard it is to invent a new pharmaceutical drug.

I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for the people who invented this new drug.

One legitimate point raised in this other thread is that a full course treatment of the drug in Egypt only costs $900. But there is a very valid explanation for this, and it has to do with the nature of intellectual property. Creating a new piece of intellectual property can be very expensive. For example, it can cost more than $100 million to make a new movie. But once that new piece of intellectual property has been created, it can be very cheap to manufacture copies of it. So, for example, a DVD of a movie can be manufactured for less than a dollar.

When people in the U.S. pay $84,000 for the drug, they are helping to pay for the very high cost of the research and development that went into inventing it. By comparison, when people in Egypt pay only $900, they are only paying for the cost of manufacturing it.

Any idiot can manufacture a copy of a drug that was invented by someone else.

But it takes a visionary, creative genius, or, oftentimes, an entire team of them, to invent a new drug as groundbreaking as this one.

Eventually, the patent on this drug will expire, and a far cheaper generic version will be available in the U.S. But until that happens, we need to let this company make huge profits from the drug, so it will have the means, as well as the incentive, to invent more new drugs in the future.

Another thing that I have noticed is that the people who get mad at the cost of this new drug, never get mad at the far higher cost of a liver transplant. Why is that? If it’s wrong to charge $84,000 for this drug, then why is OK to charge $577,000 for a liver transplant?

Apparently, these people at Democratic Underground would prefer that this new drug had simply never been invented.

I love civilization. I love technology. I love innovation. The people who invented this new drug deserve praise, not criticism.

 



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: Hugin
Well, I predict a lot of people will fly to some other country (not necessarily Egypt) and stay there 12 weeks for treatment for a lot less than 84,000.

And I suspect that a majority of them will ultimately die thinking they received the same medical care there that they would have received here in the states.........

21 posted on 07/25/2014 2:26:09 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (By now, everyone should know that you shoot a zombie in the head. Don't try to reason with them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: glennaro

It’s the same “water should be free” mentality we’re seeing with the residents of Detroit. Few liberals understand how a sophisticated infrastructure necessary for running a civilized society is set up. In a libs mind, all the necessities should be “free.” Food, water, clothing, shelter, drugs, entertainment, etc.....all “free.” Because these things just happen by themselves. (snicker)


22 posted on 07/25/2014 2:28:09 PM PDT by driftless2 (For long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Well, I predict a lot of people will fly to some other country (not necessarily Egypt) and stay there 12 weeks for treatment for a lot less than 84,000.

As a side note, it's highly likely that that "some other country" won't even have access to that drug treatment program.........

23 posted on 07/25/2014 2:30:00 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (By now, everyone should know that you shoot a zombie in the head. Don't try to reason with them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

Why? There are plenty of places in the world with great medical care other than the USA, if you have the money. I wonder what it costs in Israel?


24 posted on 07/25/2014 2:33:08 PM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco
As a side note, it's highly likely that that "some other country" won't even have access to that drug treatment program.........

But Egypt does? Why is that?

25 posted on 07/25/2014 2:34:38 PM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Rumsfeld used to be CEO of Gilead, so that could explain some of their hatred. I remember when Gilead acquired the company that invented the drug (they paid a fortune). Their stock actually declined for awhile.


26 posted on 07/25/2014 2:36:59 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
not only does it not require/cost a liver transplant, it also doesn’t require /cost the person to be on anti-tissue rejection drugs forever after.

Going through major surgery is no picnic either, and the quality of life is so much better with a person's natural liver.

27 posted on 07/25/2014 2:48:03 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
This whole problem could be avoided if the leftists could somehow rein in their filthy habits like anal sex and intravenous drug use.
28 posted on 07/25/2014 3:07:22 PM PDT by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: beef
Are all of the causes of Hep C preventable? If they are, I don't understand why governments or insurance should pay for the very expensive treatment. There was a story on the TV news in which someone said this drug will add $200 - $300 to the annual cost of an insurance policy!

This is one of the flaws of Obamacare. If people are forced to buy health insurance and forced into what's covered, there's no incentive for cheaper cures.

A cure this expensive is not the answer for any disease, realistically speaking. Let those who can afford it pay if that's what they choose.

29 posted on 07/25/2014 3:16:12 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
But Egypt does? Why is that?

What is it about Egypt's medical system that makes you think it rival's the US's and what makes you think you would possibly receive the same treatment and care there as here in the US?

Because they say so?

30 posted on 07/25/2014 3:47:48 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (By now, everyone should know that you shoot a zombie in the head. Don't try to reason with them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: grania

Are all of the causes of Hep C preventable?

If they are, I don’t understand why governments or insurance should pay for the very expensive treatment. There was a story on the TV news in which someone said this drug will add $200 - $300 to the annual cost of an insurance policy


My Sister-In-Law contracted Hep C in the 80’s from a bad blood transfusion during an ectopic pregnancy. Blood was not tested for it until the early 90’s

She died a few years ago from the liver disease caused by the HEP C


31 posted on 07/25/2014 3:54:33 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

We’re talking about a drug here, not brain surgery. It’s price is high in the US because of patent rights, not because it’s expensive or necessarily hard to produce.


32 posted on 07/25/2014 4:02:40 PM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent
Thank you for that information. I'm sorry about your sister-in-law.

You've answered my question. HepC is not an entirely preventable disease. The probelem still exists, though, that there's no incentive to search for cheaper solutions when expensive ones are covered.

33 posted on 07/25/2014 4:04:41 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: grundle

This drug is so important to the US, as well as the world, that subsidizing it with the idea of radically reducing the number of Hepatitis C carriers is not unreasonable. In the US it is pronounced among immigrants, with as many as 10 million infected. In turn, any blood transfer, as well as congenital transfer will work its way into our general population.

The most infected nation in the world is Egypt, a side effect of a humanitarian vaccination effort against a waterborne parasite that had tormented them since the time of the Pharoahs. In any event, some 10% of their population is infected with Hepatitis C.

In any event, if the price of a 12 week regimen could be reduced to a thousand dollars, it would go a long way to protecting our population from a nasty and often lethal disease.


34 posted on 07/25/2014 4:10:50 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

To say nothing of the fact that the drug, unlike livers, can be manufactured in bulk.


35 posted on 07/25/2014 4:23:05 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grundle

There are some drugs who’s patents have been extended multiple times.

Then there is the money that tends to gravitate towards politicians. Good reason why patents are extended, and also why the drugs are expensive.

Government subsidization of research is thin and many $$ are wasted on the inane.

Lets add in some lawyers and class action lawsuits that are inevitable when the drug companies get sued. It’s easy to see that a critical drug such as this one for Hep C, if it does not work or goes sideways, big money lawsuits spring up.

Bottom line is: There is alot the Federal Government can do to help reduce the cost of Non-reoccurring engineering and research expenses without infringing on our capitalistic society.

Alas, we have a big burgeoning federal bureaucracy where “government help” only means additional costs.


36 posted on 07/25/2014 4:49:08 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
When people in the U.S. pay $84,000 for the drug, they are helping to pay for the very high cost of the research and development that went into inventing it. By comparison, when people in Egypt pay only $900, they are only paying for the cost of manufacturing it.

Because of the FDA, regulation, litigation and a host of other government interference, it now costs close to one billion to bring a drug to market. This is from a reliable source within TEVA. If we went to the UL model for the drug development process we could bring down the cost of new innovation dramatically.

When I set my coffee maker timer before bed, I am pretty confident my house won't burn down during the night. I would not be so confident if the FDA approved the coffee maker. First I would have to finance the purchase and then hope that it actually brews a cup of coffee. Second, I would have no recourse when my house burned down.
37 posted on 07/25/2014 4:52:34 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
But Egypt does? Why is that?

Because Gilead's cost structure is based on per capita income........with Egypt being at the extreme low end of that income range.

Because Egypt's socialized medical system is 100% govt. funded.

Because YOU, as an American citizen, would NEVER be allowed treatment in Egypt should you travel there for it.

And if you were lucky enough to be a citizen in Egypt, you, as an Egyptian citizen, would be put on a waiting list, a list that is headed up by only the rich and influential citizens of that country while all the poor schleps wait in line for the treatment that would likely never be made available to them before they died.........

38 posted on 07/25/2014 4:58:17 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (By now, everyone should know that you shoot a zombie in the head. Don't try to reason with them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
"It’s price is high in the US because of patent rights, not because it’s expensive or necessarily hard to produce."

You're "dead" wrong on that. It’s price is high in the US because it costs about a billion dollars to complete all of the testing required to get a new drug approved by the FDA. Then, they can only recover that cost during the time of the patent coverage, because the patent is required to give sufficient information for anyone else to produce it.

39 posted on 07/25/2014 6:21:48 PM PDT by norwaypinesavage (The Stone Age didnÂ’t end because we ran out of stones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: grundle

If they stopped DOING DRUGS they wouldn’t have to worry about this disease, or its cost.


40 posted on 07/25/2014 6:55:05 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson