1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The $400 EpiPen

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Aug 23, 2016.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I was at the doctor's office this week and read this in Forbes. It fits well in this discussion -- it's about a company that specializes in finding cures or treatments for rare and life-threatening diseases.

    How Focusing On Obscure Diseases Made BioMarin A $15 Billion Company

    Today BioMarin, the company that funded the testing of that drug for Ryan Dant, has annual sales of $890 million based on four approved drugs that treat just 8,000 patients worldwide. For some patients the cost of a BioMarin drug could reach $1 million a year, paid for by governments (outside the U.S.) or insurance (inside of it). BioMarin, based in San Rafael, Calif., is expected to turn its first profit from continuing operations next year and has a market capitalization of almost $15 billion, based on the medicines it sells and on hopes for more, including a gene therapy that might cure hemophilia. Shares are up 460% over the past ten years.

    To this point, it appears that the treatments are so rare that the insurance companies and governments just wave them along because they don't affect the overall budget very much. But also, BioMarin's profits are pretty large and it's a hot stock pick. What if an insurance company tried to negotiate down on those prices and BioMarin said no? And what happens if that hemophilia cure pans out and there's enough scale for insurance companies and governments fight those prices?

    Definitely a complicated issue. Based on what I've seen of the various systems, though, the government agencies are going to be more successful negotiating price than the insurance companies will.
     
  2. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    If that delivery method is required in some places, how could it not?
     
  3. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    Looting?
     
  4. amraeder

    amraeder Well-Known Member

  5. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Maybe it's a chicken-and-egg kind of thing, but the requirements re: the delivery method created (or at least contributed to the creation of) the opportunity for the price-gouging (stipulated arguendo). It's the very essence of regulatory capture: You set things up such that your product/service is the only viable/legal option, then you lower the boom.
     
    Hokie_pokie likes this.
  6. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Well, other than the law of supply and demand. ;)
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    In this case, the boom is making it difficult for people to afford a life-saving treatment.
     
  8. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Yeah, it's either don't buy that or drop down a cable tier for a year ...
     
    Hokie_pokie likes this.
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    At least you've backed off the inaccurate notion that they can simply go buy the generic, so that is progress.
     
  10. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    If we're imagining capitalism uber alles, why stipulate a common grid for competitors to plug into?
     
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    We don't have to. Actually, my take/point is clearer if we don't. Suppose everybody generates his/her/its own electricity with, say, gasoline-powered generators. In the wake of the disaster, gasoline has become scarcer. Should the price of gasoline be capped? And what would the consequences of that cap be?
     
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure why you feel this is some great concession for me/win for you, but if it makes you feel good, more power to you. But, to emphasize: But for the policies imposed by camps/schools/etc.*, parents would be free(er) to buy the generic alternative.


    *And we're assuming a worst-case here: Could well be that camps/schools/etc., don't have policies re: the brand of epinephrine injector but instead simply mandate an epinephrine injector, which renders all of this moot.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page