Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

I'd rather competition policy regulates the market. Clearly he's not in it for humanitarian reasons clearly he is going to make a KILLING off this drug literally or not. I've heard the drug has really low costs to produce but regardless the whole production and price should be regulated just like adequate competition policy would implement. I don't buy into his humanitarian argument he has increased the price by 4000%. Indirectly he will make insurance more expensive less Americans will be able to afford insurance thus receiving a lower standard of care.

You think he's going to make a real killing off one of the least used pharmaceutical products in the world at 750 a pop when there are others used tenfold that go upwards of 1.5 grand?

You're confusing production and manufacturing costs. It's not expensive to manufacture the drug, yes, but production costs for any drug can run into the hundreds of millions. FDA fees, distribution, storage, quality control, regulations, salaries all have to be paid. I've yet to see anyone on this thread show me one pharma company that has made a profit and covered production costs at 50 million in sales.

I never claimed he was a humanitarian, he's a businessman and trying to turn a profit. I simply hate this knee-jerk reaction and sensationalism from the media.

Not really media have a fair point. Glad they raised the issue rather than let scum bags like this get away with it. Maybe next year demand spikes and he'll increase it a further 4000% but now he knows the media's on him so he might refrain.

Like i said i have nothing wrong with people trying to make a profit when risk is involved. Not rent seeking when people's lives are at risk. Maybe a more experienced firm could of taken the drug over which already have economies of scale the government should of stepped in to administer the bidding process. Competition policy shows there's always a way for a fairer outcome that will avoid a 4000% increase.

Except he can't do that because of regulations from the Government and the FDA, and especially not if he wants to keep his government subsidies. He's not selling coconuts.

You still haven't answered my question of whether you would have preferred it before when people were not able to get the drug in the first place.

Except he can't do that because of regulations from the Government and the FDA, and especially not if he wants to keep his government subsidies. He's not selling coconuts.

You still haven't answered my question of whether you would have preferred it before when people were not able to get the drug in the first place.

You clearly don't understand competition policy. He's no genius and doesn't deserve to profit off other people's misery. Government should of stepped in and administered the bidding process in order to find the best company for the drug. They could of used a whole host of bidding process/price limits/regulations. He's clearly not the right person for the job simply because he can raise large amounts of money.

No. You just believe he should spend millions upon millions producing a drug that next to no one uses. Not one company cared about this drug beforehand, were making it only to get more subsidies, because it was absolutely unprofitable. It's been absolutely ignored for decades.

Once again, apologies if this is in the video, but I'm fairly sure that this drug alone doesn't cost nearly 750$ to make per pill, thus making the price increase still unjustifiable.
--
But hey in your words "the right" will allow companies to get away with murder as long as it turns a profit eh.

Another person in the healthcare industry who thinks they're doing god's work and wants to be paid above par wages. No thanks, we shall bring competition!

clearly he's spotted a market opportunity and raised the most cash. If it was highlighted to other more sufficient firms with the production/technical capabilities they would of entered the bidding process. This we call market information.

A lack of market information does not bring the best outcome. Basic competition policy here.

The problem is that a lot of these profits are not going back into research. They're going into the profits of an elite group who's only intention is pushing the most profitable drugs to the market, which is why anti-depression medicine and sleeping pills are out in abundance. The same top level corporate companies that overwork people and often force them into depression are often the same ones who profit when that person then gets prescribed medicine for depression. There's no money in cures, only in management because then you need to keep having so much of this drug and you're hooked on it. Don't be fooled that their intentions aren't only profit because if they really gave a damn about people then they wouldn't be putting so many potentially dangerous things in foods, drinks, laundry detergents and so forth. Like with most things in this world its all about profit, pure and simple. That's what happens when you allow big pharmaceutical companies to run rampant in the private sector. They will work in the best interests of their shareholders just like any other large corporation. You have to be some sort of naive and delusional idiot to not see that this is the case.

It's been kicked around from one pharma company to another for years. It's absolutely unwanted because of how unprofitable it is. The last company were just waiting to dump it on someone else.

Do you really think companies like GSK would have let it go after years if they didn't see money.

Daraprim takes around a 100 tablets and 12 weeks for complete treatment and is one of the least profitable drugs in the world.

I'd have to see solid information about this. I think you're just making things up now.

Number 1. Market information will need to be dispersed to all (suitable companies)
Number 2 They will be encouraged to put in a sealed bid (other firms do not know how much each are bidding)
Number 3 The companies will need to have sufficient economies of scale/technical expertise

There you go, you have a fairer bidding process without the 4000% increase.

Number 4 even if the firms are all not interested (I DOUBT HIGHLY) then a government subsidy should be set up as it will pay dividends in the long term. Now this would only occur in the UK hence why the US system is flawed.

So no. They don't need a 4000% increase we don't need overpaid people in the industry. It's fine just the way it is. We need people with entrepreneurial risk and devotion. Not rental capitalists/borrowed money and psychopath mindsets.

You can look up the history of the drug on Google fairly easily.
GSK sold it to CorePharma (who then spun it out to several others if I'm not mistaken) then gave it to Impax and then to his company Turing.

Again, like I've said before, no one wanted it. Do you really think Pharma giants like Pfizer, Roche, Novartis wouldn't have outbid him easily if they wanted to? Do you honestly think Impax would have gone to some newly founded company with one drug under it's wing without to Novartis and Pfizer first?

This drug made 5 Million in Revenue (I mistakenly said 50 million before. Will correct other posts with sources) at the price it was being sold at. You're completely naive if you think that any Pharma company can sustain it at that level of revenue. Any other company who wanted to make a profit on it would have needed to raise the price almost to the same level.

Almost to the same level!?. Now you're numbers have been wrong before and some how you've just come up with total costs of production/sale LOL

Clearly i was right you are trying to protect your niche. I'm glad it's going down the pan. I'm glad people are upset and more regulation is on the way. It's not the free market here.

This is crony capitalism. Which you fail to acknowledge since you're deluded.

Yep, I was wrong on the revenue. If anything, it makes this guy's case stronger for raising the price. No pharma company can turn a profit on 5 million. I would do exactly the same in his situation.

Oh good more regulation, and less incentives for Pharma to invest money in research. You'll end up killing more people in the long run than you're trying to save.