The Price of Insulin!

[Munchkin]

Give this a read. Outrageous prices for an almost 100yo drug. It would be cheaper to just get the DS for insulin dependent type type 2's!

http://www.businessinsider.com/insulin-prices-increase-2016-9

 

[galaxygrrl]

You know, after the experience of medical tourism for this surgery, I'm just even more appalled at our heath care system. And not at all surprised by that article.

 

[DianaCox]

To be "fair-ish" (since I'm a biotech patent attorney) - Humalog is not a 100 year old drug. It is recombinant human insulin, which is different from insulin isolated from pigs. And as the article notes:

The most prescribed types of insulin are called analogues, which are slight variations of human insulin that aim to help diabetics' bodies function more closely to how they would if they were able to produce the insulin themselves.
​

Obviously, those are new drugs as well, which had to go through the entire development and clinical trials process (and costs - which are even higher for biologics). If they were not better drugs, they would probably not be the most prescribed.

This does not mean that I don't believe that the price increases haven't been exploitive, nor that the insurance companies' high deductible plans aren't nearly useless to the average person. Which is why we need universal health care, Medicare-style.

But that's a different political argument.

 

[Munchkin]

To be "fair-ish" (since I'm a biotech patent attorney) - Humalog is not a 100 year old drug. It is recombinant human insulin, which is different from insulin isolated from pigs. And as the article notes:

The most prescribed types of insulin are called analogues, which are slight variations of human insulin that aim to help diabetics' bodies function more closely to how they would if they were able to produce the insulin themselves.
​

Obviously, those are new drugs as well, which had to go through the entire development and clinical trials process (and costs - which are even higher for biologics). If they were not better drugs, they would probably not be the most prescribed.

This does not mean that I don't believe that the price increases haven't been exploitive, nor that the insurance companies' high deductible plans aren't nearly useless to the average person. Which is why we need universal health care, Medicare-style.

But that's a different political argument.

I get it. Change a molecule and you get a new patent that gives you permission to gouge the patient all over again. I wonder if the truly OLD insulins are cheap?

 

[southernlady]

I get it. Change a molecule and you get a new patent that gives you permission to gouge the patient all over again. I wonder if the truly OLD insulins are cheap?

It's almost impossible to get animal based insulin in the US and has been for almost 20 years. For standard insulin, it's either novolog or humalog and both are manufactured as analogs.

Pork insulin is illegal to sell in the US now.

 

[JackieOnLine]

Which is why we need universal health care, Medicare-style.

amen

I want there to be a hell for people who profit off us this way, rotten bastards

 

[southernlady]

Which is why we need universal health care, Medicare-style.

As LONG as they offer Med Sup or Med Advantage type plans...

Right now, standard Medicare HAS a 20% out of pocket cost for the Plan B half and unless the drug has a generic, it's a top tier on Plan D (prescription) and that is assuming it's even on the formulary.

Example of what Medicare does not allow...insulin pumps for type 2's regardless of the reason. I had an insulin pump while on Medicare BUT it was our NON-Medicare plan that covered it. Medicare would have denied me all access to an insulin pump.

 

[JackieOnLine]

yep, Medicare for all with loopholes fixed and like that. it's just stupid to leave people un/undercovered, wrong not just morally but financially.

IMO!

 

[DianaCox]

"I want there to be a hell for people who profit off us ..."

I assume you mean in excessive amounts that make it impossible to both buy medication and eat? Because the profit motive is what drives people to invest in biotech and pharmaceutical companies, hoping that new drugs will be discovered that both help people live, and provide a reasonable return on investment (ROI) for the money. And when each drug costs $1-2 BILLION to develop and bring to market, and only one drug in 10,000 makes it that far, there has to be a significant ROI for the very high risk that is taken, especially when the investment is in a smaller company that could go under before they test 10,000 compounds, especially biologics.

Just pointing out that profit per se is not bad. It is when there is an excessive profit-taking that results in people not being able to obtain needed treatment that is the problem - that's profiteering: "seeking or exacting exorbitant profits, especially through the sale of scarce or rationed goods."

 

[JackieOnLine]

I assume you mean in excessive amounts that make it impossible to both buy medication and eat?

that, for sure - what I was think of specifically was making money by taking premiums until you get sick and then finding a way to not pay. oh, look - a pre-existing condition or whatever.

and people shouldn't be going bankrupt from medical bills when they have "health insurance"

 

[hilary1617]

I used to work in a building that was shared with Abbvie, a branch of Abbott Pharmaceuticals. They treated their staff much better than my employer did / does, so that's important to consider. They create jobs. Good jobs. Also, I was grateful that they made CREON which was pricey, but most assuredly kept me from a horrible fate when I was fading right after my distal pancreatectomy and liver resection.