The FDA is another worthless bureaucracy who don’t protect the citizens from nasty drug makers. People have to resort to getting prescription drugs from Canada or Mexico to be able to afford them.
He implied US citizens do not accept the prices and go to alternative sources in Cana-duh. That is why he thinks the FDA is worthless …. if I may interpret his simply worded remark. Some key words in his post: protect, afford.
Now that I’ve pointed out the answers in his post that escaped you, please explain why you made an empty reply. Ready, steady, …. GO!
I struggle with this issue. If a drug company uses their own funds for R&D then why wouldn’t they be entitled to charge whatever the market will bear. Is a patient “entitled” to the right to be provided with a drug, at a cost they can afford, that will cure an illness? What about a drug that just makes life better (ex: ED drug)? Maybe the price drops if patients can’t afford it or a health insurance company declares they won’t pay for it. Is it fair to a health insurance company to set premiums based on current drug availability, costs, and treatment plans only to have a new, more expensive drug introduced to the market that the insurance company is now expected to pay for?
There is no debate here. This man can’t afford a life-saving medicine and the company is worried about how many more billions they can bilk out of the public.
12 or 13 years of patent exclusivity is way, way more than enough to recoup R&D, which, by the way, is a fraction of what many drug makers spend on advertising and lobbiyng combined.
By all means, though, let greed trump all compassion and reason, though.
Right or wrong, we’ve decided as a nation that our healthcare industry is a “for profit” system. Unless Celgene is breaking a law they’re pretty much acting as expected.
The company is acting in its self interest, according to laws and regulations established by Congress and the FDA. The problem IS NOT the drug mfrs, but Congress and the FDA. Look north for some solutions, as do many who cross the border for cheaper drugs.
Also, you have no idea whatsoever what time period is needed to recoup R&D costs, and are posting trash from liberal websites whose authors are clueless and make up stuff filled with hyperbole.
Drug research cost recovery time horizons vary by drug.
Product Liability insurance costs for adverse effects are another cost of advanced, life-altering drugs that must be embedded in their market costs. Those costs recur, year after year, and DO NOT abruptly end when a specific drug is replaced by newer drugs. So, attorneys filing product liability lawsuits are partly to blame for high drug costs, yet are never singled out for such. Why is that? I know, and want to see if anyone will admit the reason.
Actually, there IS a debate here. It will now lead to enactment of regulatory roll backs in the FDA and related Federal bureaucracies; i.e. some swamp draining. With that, some mimicking of the Canadian drug approval process through expedition of the steps to allow drugs to reach a more competitive market to benefit consumers. Be aware that this is not a panacea. The regulatory rollbacks will not be sufficient to address the affordability problem. Affordability of a product or service is often achieved through openly competitive markets. In the case of products (e.g. drugs) which may be harmful to consumers, open competition isn’t always wise. Tradeoffs will be required, such as TEMPORARY govt subsidies and increased tax deductions of drug research costs.
I still see no blame shed on product liability insurance costs embedded in life-altering drug costs. This article could do better by addressing that problem, which is intertwined with Congressional inertia on the underlying issues. I challenge ANYONE to address this cost issue in this debate. Ready, steady, …. GO!
Given the recent Federal District Court ruling that the brand name drug manufacturer can be liable for any issues with a generic version manufactured by another company, why wouldn’t a brand name company keep the patent protection for as long as possible.
How do you reserve for a lawsuit 5 or 10 years later?
How do you reserve for courts that allow dubious scientific data in court, leading jury to make dubious awards?
How do you reserve for jury awards based solely on emotion of the jury?
apply these patent principles to a begin product, for example a running shoe. Should that manufacturer be required to sell the shoes at a loss? Should they be held liable for injuries caused by a competitor’s cheaper version? Should they be held to a higher standard than generic running shoe manufacturers?
Capitalism, at its core, is not a humane or begin system.
I feel bad for the cancer, no doubt, but I must admit scratching my head at being “retired” at his age. Being a firefighter must not pay all that bad when folks can “retire” at age 53.
@Wayne; Re: retired at 53; a firefighters’ job is stressful, and some jurisdictions fund sizeable, lucrative pensions, with medical insurance including PTSD coverage. At age 50, some firefighters are deemed incapable of some required duties; e.g. pulling heavy hoses, climbing stairs in breathing apparatus with heavy protective suits. Those who work to age 50 might be transferred to lighter duties and retire at age 60 or 65. I doubt any ‘senior firefighters’ (whatever age that term may imply) are front-line fire fighters. Those who reach ages to qualify for local or state pensions will ‘retire’ and take related jobs until age 60, 65, etc. Some retire early due to illnesses related, or not, to the job.
I wonder about the frequency of each of these life-altering illnesses. If small as a percentage of a population, modest subsidies on HI policies might help pay the costs of these drugs for the assumed few patients that need them. And, the costs of ‘unnecessary’ drugs that merely improve the quality of life (e.g. male potency drugs, fertility drugs, etc.) should be surcharged in order to subsidize ‘necessary’ drugs.
I have been on Revlimid for about 2 years and the result is my cancer has been at a low level and controlled. I have no side effects that I am aware of. I do however think this medicine is terribly expensive cause I bought the generic one from bonhoa.com, price only 2% of the brand one, works the same . The online pharmacy helps me a lot in the past 2 years. I do know what it will be if I can not get the generic one. Government should spend money to help poor people.
The FDA is another worthless bureaucracy who don’t protect the citizens from nasty drug makers. People have to resort to getting prescription drugs from Canada or Mexico to be able to afford them.
LOL. Why do you think that is?
Why don’t you enlighten us?
He implied US citizens do not accept the prices and go to alternative sources in Cana-duh. That is why he thinks the FDA is worthless …. if I may interpret his simply worded remark. Some key words in his post: protect, afford.
Now that I’ve pointed out the answers in his post that escaped you, please explain why you made an empty reply. Ready, steady, …. GO!
I struggle with this issue. If a drug company uses their own funds for R&D then why wouldn’t they be entitled to charge whatever the market will bear. Is a patient “entitled” to the right to be provided with a drug, at a cost they can afford, that will cure an illness? What about a drug that just makes life better (ex: ED drug)? Maybe the price drops if patients can’t afford it or a health insurance company declares they won’t pay for it. Is it fair to a health insurance company to set premiums based on current drug availability, costs, and treatment plans only to have a new, more expensive drug introduced to the market that the insurance company is now expected to pay for?
There is no debate here. This man can’t afford a life-saving medicine and the company is worried about how many more billions they can bilk out of the public.
12 or 13 years of patent exclusivity is way, way more than enough to recoup R&D, which, by the way, is a fraction of what many drug makers spend on advertising and lobbiyng combined.
By all means, though, let greed trump all compassion and reason, though.
And you have run how many start-ups and created how many life-saving drugs yourself to have all of this expertise?
Right or wrong, we’ve decided as a nation that our healthcare industry is a “for profit” system. Unless Celgene is breaking a law they’re pretty much acting as expected.
The company is acting in its self interest, according to laws and regulations established by Congress and the FDA. The problem IS NOT the drug mfrs, but Congress and the FDA. Look north for some solutions, as do many who cross the border for cheaper drugs.
Also, you have no idea whatsoever what time period is needed to recoup R&D costs, and are posting trash from liberal websites whose authors are clueless and make up stuff filled with hyperbole.
Drug research cost recovery time horizons vary by drug.
Product Liability insurance costs for adverse effects are another cost of advanced, life-altering drugs that must be embedded in their market costs. Those costs recur, year after year, and DO NOT abruptly end when a specific drug is replaced by newer drugs. So, attorneys filing product liability lawsuits are partly to blame for high drug costs, yet are never singled out for such. Why is that? I know, and want to see if anyone will admit the reason.
Actually, there IS a debate here. It will now lead to enactment of regulatory roll backs in the FDA and related Federal bureaucracies; i.e. some swamp draining. With that, some mimicking of the Canadian drug approval process through expedition of the steps to allow drugs to reach a more competitive market to benefit consumers. Be aware that this is not a panacea. The regulatory rollbacks will not be sufficient to address the affordability problem. Affordability of a product or service is often achieved through openly competitive markets. In the case of products (e.g. drugs) which may be harmful to consumers, open competition isn’t always wise. Tradeoffs will be required, such as TEMPORARY govt subsidies and increased tax deductions of drug research costs.
I still see no blame shed on product liability insurance costs embedded in life-altering drug costs. This article could do better by addressing that problem, which is intertwined with Congressional inertia on the underlying issues. I challenge ANYONE to address this cost issue in this debate. Ready, steady, …. GO!
Given the recent Federal District Court ruling that the brand name drug manufacturer can be liable for any issues with a generic version manufactured by another company, why wouldn’t a brand name company keep the patent protection for as long as possible.
How do you reserve for a lawsuit 5 or 10 years later?
How do you reserve for courts that allow dubious scientific data in court, leading jury to make dubious awards?
How do you reserve for jury awards based solely on emotion of the jury?
apply these patent principles to a begin product, for example a running shoe. Should that manufacturer be required to sell the shoes at a loss? Should they be held liable for injuries caused by a competitor’s cheaper version? Should they be held to a higher standard than generic running shoe manufacturers?
Capitalism, at its core, is not a humane or begin system.
I feel bad for the cancer, no doubt, but I must admit scratching my head at being “retired” at his age. Being a firefighter must not pay all that bad when folks can “retire” at age 53.
@Wayne; Re: retired at 53; a firefighters’ job is stressful, and some jurisdictions fund sizeable, lucrative pensions, with medical insurance including PTSD coverage. At age 50, some firefighters are deemed incapable of some required duties; e.g. pulling heavy hoses, climbing stairs in breathing apparatus with heavy protective suits. Those who work to age 50 might be transferred to lighter duties and retire at age 60 or 65. I doubt any ‘senior firefighters’ (whatever age that term may imply) are front-line fire fighters. Those who reach ages to qualify for local or state pensions will ‘retire’ and take related jobs until age 60, 65, etc. Some retire early due to illnesses related, or not, to the job.
With the below comment from the story, it seems some folks should calm down. Sounds like a “fake news” headline and story premise.
Bob Kelsey said Celgene is providing him with free doses until a charity comes through for him.
Correct.
I wonder about the frequency of each of these life-altering illnesses. If small as a percentage of a population, modest subsidies on HI policies might help pay the costs of these drugs for the assumed few patients that need them. And, the costs of ‘unnecessary’ drugs that merely improve the quality of life (e.g. male potency drugs, fertility drugs, etc.) should be surcharged in order to subsidize ‘necessary’ drugs.
I have been on Revlimid for about 2 years and the result is my cancer has been at a low level and controlled. I have no side effects that I am aware of. I do however think this medicine is terribly expensive cause I bought the generic one from bonhoa.com, price only 2% of the brand one, works the same . The online pharmacy helps me a lot in the past 2 years. I do know what it will be if I can not get the generic one. Government should spend money to help poor people.