• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk facing pressure as study finds $1,000 appetite suppressant can be made for just $5

thebeave said:
I would assume at least part of the high cost of the drug is in recover the high R&D costs in developing it. That said, it does seem excessive and out of reach for most consumers.
Click to expand...
Yup. I see three basic problems with the system.

1) Consumer advertising. That should be extremely limited--there's a legitimate case for it in cases where there's a new treatment for a live-with-it condition that's a major step up from what came before. And it should be limited to advising people to talk to their doctor about a new treatment for X. No names. Off the top of my head Viagra would be the only case. (Since it's a live-with-it someone who found previous options unacceptable might have changed doctors and not mentioned it to the new one.)

2) Unjust negotiation involving formularies. Off the top of my head:
2a) Offering states substantial rebates on their drug if they'll make it the sole one in the class on Medicaid. The states decide the formulary, the feds pay most of the bill. The drug companies can make it economically sensible for the states to go with the expensive one, leaving the feds with the bill.
2b) Offering hospitals good deals for being the exclusive one on certain drugs. It's a lot easier for the doctors to switch patients to the formulary drug, now they're discharged on a more expensive drug. Some drugs aren't that easy to switch around without monitoring the results.
This isn't a coke-vs-pepsi situation, I'd make any such exclusive agreement illegal.

3) Runaway successes like the weight loss drugs. I'm not sure how to fairly address this one.

And, a related issue, I would make insurance company denials a medical decision. And the patient can bring a malpractice action as if the treatment were denied even if they actually pay for it another way. Damages are not limited to the value of the treatment but the value of the consequences. As it stands they have basically zero risk in denying care and that makes for very lopsided decisions.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
On the PBS, Ozempic costs Australians about $42 a month (four weekly injections). On a private prescription, the cost is about $132 a month.

According to the medical news website WebMD, Ozempic can cost uninsured Americans more than a $US1000 a month and many flock to Canada to save $US700 a month.
Click to expand...
The problem with such comparisons is that if we simply reduced the US price to the price in various other countries we would devastate the drug industry. A fair price is somewhere in between the two.

The thing is the UHC systems can use their governmental power to give the drug makers a take-it-or-leave-it price and the drug makers will accept so long as that price is above their marginal cost. However, if you sell everything for a bit over your marginal cost you'll soon go bankrupt.

(And note that we have the same governmental power problem with Medicare and Medicaid. Increasing numbers of doctors are saying no to such patients as they'll lose money seeing them.)

I would consider a fair way of resolving this to require that to be sold in the US that they can't charge US wholesalers any more than they charge in any other first-world country. (I would permit at-cost or free distribution to third world countries, mark it as such and do not allow it's sale in a country that isn't receiving it charitably.) Note, though, that the result of this would not only be a considerable drop in US prices but a considerable jump in drug prices in other first world countries.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
The problem with such comparisons is that if we simply reduced the US price to the price in various other countries we would devastate the drug industry. A fair price is somewhere in between the two.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sort of proof of this?
 
thebeave said:
I would assume at least part of the high cost of the drug is in recover the high R&D costs in developing it. That said, it does seem excessive and out of reach for most consumers.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how much of that R & D was subsidised in marginal electorates. Whenever I see Big Pharma claim poverty for their drugs I'm reminded of this clip:

 
Harry Bosch said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Article

Ozempic could be profitably produced for less than $5 a month even as maker Novo Nordisk A/S charges almost $1,000 in the US, according to a study that revives questions about prices for top-selling treatments for diabetes and obesity.

The blockbuster drug could be manufactured for 89 cents to $4.73 for a month’s supply, figures that include a profit margin, researchers at Yale University, King’s College Hospital in London and the nonprofit Doctors Without Borders reported in the journal JAMA Network Open. That compares to the monthly US list price of $968.52 for Ozempic, a weekly injection.

...

Bernie Sanders ... called on Novo Nordisk to lower the list price of Ozempic to $155 a month or less, in line with what it charges in other countries.
Click to expand...

That sounds too reasonable and so maybe they will reduce it to $800 after some pressure.
Click to expand...
A gym membership is definitely cheaper and more fun!
Click to expand...
Gonna speak anecdotally, but the Ozempic worked very well for my FIL who has diabetes. It sucks, but it works. The first couple of days are not pleasant. Weight loss for some people isn't easy. And exercise gets harder and harder with age.

Also, I don't think I ever had fun at gym, other than swimming.
 
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The problem with such comparisons is that if we simply reduced the US price to the price in various other countries we would devastate the drug industry. A fair price is somewhere in between the two.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sort of proof of this?
Click to expand...
When big Pharma stop posting record profits and salaries and perks for top management, regardless of the economy for everyone else, I'll consider the possibility of them being "devastated".
Until then 🤣
Tom
 
Loren Pechtel said:

I would consider a fair way of resolving this to require that to be sold in the US that they can't charge US wholesalers any more than they charge in any other first-world country. (I would permit at-cost or free distribution to third world countries, mark it as such and do not allow it's sale in a country that isn't receiving it charitably.) Note, though, that the result of this would not only be a considerable drop in US prices but a considerable jump in drug prices in other first world countries.
Click to expand...
You would think any sane political leadership would do this. For example, what could possibly be the downside if Biden would do this? He might piss off Canada? Why would that matter to him unless Canada is paying money into his campaign?

Why don't our politicians represent US citizens anymore?
 
RVonse said:
Loren Pechtel said:

I would consider a fair way of resolving this to require that to be sold in the US that they can't charge US wholesalers any more than they charge in any other first-world country. (I would permit at-cost or free distribution to third world countries, mark it as such and do not allow it's sale in a country that isn't receiving it charitably.) Note, though, that the result of this would not only be a considerable drop in US prices but a considerable jump in drug prices in other first world countries.
Click to expand...
You would think any sane political leadership would do this. For example, what could possibly be the downside if Biden would do this? He might piss off Canada? Why would that matter to him unless Canada is paying money into his campaign?

Why don't our politicians represent US citizens anymore?
Click to expand...
Anymore? When was this utopian age where Government wasn't beholden to the interests of corporations and wealth? You think the Confederacy happened because slavery helped poor white people in the South?

Also, last time the Dems tried to make health care more accessible, the electorate punished them because they bought the lies of the far right-wing.
 
RVonse said:
Loren Pechtel said:

I would consider a fair way of resolving this to require that to be sold in the US that they can't charge US wholesalers any more than they charge in any other first-world country. (I would permit at-cost or free distribution to third world countries, mark it as such and do not allow it's sale in a country that isn't receiving it charitably.) Note, though, that the result of this would not only be a considerable drop in US prices but a considerable jump in drug prices in other first world countries.
Click to expand...
You would think any sane political leadership would do this. For example, what could possibly be the downside if Biden would do this? He might piss off Canada? Why would that matter to him unless Canada is paying money into his campaign?

Why don't our politicians represent US citizens anymore?
Click to expand...

Yes, Biden is secretly working for the Canadians. It's the only possible rational explanation for Ozempic prices being so high.
 
I know one person who takes this med and has lost 45 pounds so far. His health is pretty much a catastrophe. The silver lining is that the loss of weight has enabled him to cut back on other medications. But the price of the med is still a crime.
 
RVonse said:
Loren Pechtel said:

I would consider a fair way of resolving this to require that to be sold in the US that they can't charge US wholesalers any more than they charge in any other first-world country. (I would permit at-cost or free distribution to third world countries, mark it as such and do not allow it's sale in a country that isn't receiving it charitably.) Note, though, that the result of this would not only be a considerable drop in US prices but a considerable jump in drug prices in other first world countries.
Click to expand...
You would think any sane political leadership would do this. For example, what could possibly be the downside if Biden would do this? He might piss off Canada? Why would that matter to him unless Canada is paying money into his campaign?

Why don't our politicians represent US citizens anymore?
Click to expand...
$

If they don't support what the donors want they won't have the money to get elected. It's actually always been that way, it's just much more obvious now.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
But the price of the med is still a crime.
Click to expand...
We the People of the United States, in Order to ... promote the general Welfare, ... establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ...
The Congress shall have power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;​

Exactly which part of "exclusive Right" do you people not understand?

The whole bleeding point of ever having a patent system in the first place is to offer monopoly profits on inventions, as an incentive for inventing. This is a grand bargain struck between the American people and all the inventors in the world: "If you invent cool stuff for us, in exchange we will give to you the first twenty years of our right to copy that stuff: we promise you we will not use your invention until we pay you whatever you ask or twenty years have passed.".

If Americans don't think this bargain is in our best interests, our proper beef is with our elected representatives, the people who make that offer on our behalf. We can ask them to make us better deals in the future, and we can fire them if we think different representatives will be able to make better bargains for us. But for us to take delivery and then repudiate our bargain after the other parties have accepted the deal we offered and have already performed their end of the bargain, because we've decided we no longer care for the price we agreed to? That would be a crime. That would be the American people choosing to become swindlers.
 
Hearing that there is often too high a loss of lean muscle mass with Ozempic and the rest of this class of drugs.
 
repoman said:
Hearing that there is often too high a loss of lean muscle mass with Ozempic and the rest of this class of drugs.
Click to expand...
This is true for any weight loss. In calorie deficit, roughly 20% of the weight loss will be muscle. The person needs to exercise and the calorie intake should be protein rich to combat this. The trick is to win the battle against muscle loss. If the individual can do this, perhaps even build muscle, the person's metabolic rate will remain high and help with further fat loss.
Ozempic just makes the person feel full and helps to get them to a calorie deficit position. The rest is up to the individual. Without the sustained behavioral change, the individual will be back up to their sloth weight in no time.
There is no substitute for lifestyle change.
 
TV and credit cards said:
repoman said:
Hearing that there is often too high a loss of lean muscle mass with Ozempic and the rest of this class of drugs.
Click to expand...
This is true for any weight loss. In calorie deficit, roughly 20% of the weight loss will be muscle. The person needs to exercise and the calorie intake should be protein rich to combat this. The trick is to win the battle against muscle loss. If the individual can do this, perhaps even build muscle, the person's metabolic rate will remain high and help with further fat loss.
Ozempic just makes the person feel full and helps to get them to a calorie deficit position. The rest is up to the individual. Without the sustained behavioral change, the individual will be back up to their sloth weight in no time.
There is no substitute for lifestyle change.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but keep in mind some people are on this drug (or a similar drug, same class) not primarily or maybe at all to lose weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom