Price of AIDS drug soars fivefold;"We view this as very unethical"

The Seattle Times ^ | Monday, January 05, 2004 | Carol M. Ostrom

[steve50]

Now we know why the African Aids problem is getting $15 billion of taxpayers money thrown at it.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
38	Idaho	60.00	2	30.00	92	0.65	45.00	2

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Other drugs (synthyroid, for example) have also gone up in price the last few years. The non-PCS prices for the (drugs I started 20 years ago) have increased substantially, just faster than college tuition.

[Ken522]

Price of AIDS drug soars fivefold

Now who's to blame for this?? Let's see - the drug company should be wholly responsible because the company is making OBSCENE profits ... never mind that without the drug companies, there would be no drugs to complain about and the AIDS carriers would just have to suffer in silence. Sheeze!

[FITZ]

Yes --- and that's where the $15 billion being thrown at Africa is going to end up --- once government money is involved, prices go up.

[captnorb]

Think of all those dollars going to real research...the cure for cancer, diabeties, heart disease.....Ah yes; we can't take money away from an "emotional" issue like a totally preventable problem which is self made for most.

You want to play....You got to pay!

[thoughtomator]

Wow... for that $665 every month - the OLD price - you could insure someone who is uninsured for a year. There's not a country on the planet that can afford to pay this much for AIDS symptom management.

[steve50]

You want to play....You got to pay!

Want implies an option not to play. Since it's taxdollars that are funding this African payoff "want" doesn't enter into it, you are forced to pay for drugs for foreign citizens.

[NYFriend]

The thing that everyone is forgetting is that the market isn't really in effect here. Most of these drugs are bought by governments (state or federal or both) and not by people. The government can't refuse to buy them, because in most cases they are required by law to do so. They have the power to change those laws, but can't (as we all know) for political reasons. That way, there is no upper limit in the on drug prices, unless the government imposes them. individual consumers impose those upper limits collectively, by reduce the amount they are will to buy at a given price. It doesn't work for government payers. Since the government has to tax that money out of us, we should be upset about this and we should permit our government to intervene in the drug companies business practices.

[Steve_Seattle]

"A daily dose of 12 pills used to cost about $20, Cassidy said. Now, even with the higher cost per pill, a typical daily dose of one pill costs about $8.50, and a daily dose of two pills about $17. "It's well below what most protease inhibitors are priced at; it's the lowest-priced protease inhibitor, even with the price increase."

Ok, so buried deep in the article, the truth comes out: because of the way the drug is now administered, the daily dose has gone down from 12 pills to one or two, and a typical patient is now paying $3-12 LESS per day for the drug than before, despite the price increase.

[nightdriver]

The drug companies have said that since the government was thinking about passing a drug entitlement bill, the price would double. They also promised that if the bill ever passed (which it did) the price would at least double again, so there's the reason.

The problem is the government, not the drug companies. We all now have to compete with the government now that it is a quasi-consumer now.

[nightdriver]

The drug companies have said that since the government was thinking about passing a drug entitlement bill, the price would double. They also promised that if the bill ever passed (which it did) the price would at least double again, so there's the reason.

The problem is the government, not the drug companies. We all have to compete with the government now that it is a quasi-consumer.

[nightdriver]

Sorry for the double post. Need coffee.

[freedomcrusader]

Yep, I noticed the same thing. The truth is buried way down in the article amongst hyperbole and accusations.

[Porterville]

It would break my heart to have a five fold increase in something as critical as pharmaceuticals.... it is pretty unethical, if the drug companies want to make a good name for themselves and keep people from finding alternative sources across the border or knockoff drugs in Brazil, they are certainly going about it the wrong way.

[sharktrager]

Actually, the drug companies have regularly scheduled price increases, and have for years. The way the wholesalers make money is because the price they charge is based on the current price listed by the manufacturer. They buy before the price goes up, and then charge a price based on what it would cost if they bought it today.

This is true for virtually all non-generic drugs. Where the real problem comes in is for the pharmacies and hospitals. The insurance companies seem to conveniently delay the increase in reimbursement, or increase reimbursements less than prices went up. The pharmacies can't exactly afford to refuse to accept the insurance, so they are stuck with it.

The large hospital groups and major chains have the clout to keep reimbursements in-line. The smaller operators don't.

[camas]

i wonder if this will slow down the "bug chasers"????

[Atlas Sneezed]

How has the price of condoms changed during the period these guys infected themselves?

[Indrid Cold]

Insure them for what? Not health. For my (healthy) family of 4 it's over $600 per month. I suppose I could get a better rate by getting a $10,000 deductible or going a plan that only covers catastrophic...