Senate Bill S27 stopping Big Pharma's vs. little generics-Is Law Now

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/4/2011 5:48 AM (GMT -6)   
Naturally this should not be a shock and I didn't read this bill or see if it lived or died at this point. Just pointing out the need to stop the shark attacks on getting us little fish from getting other drugs and into lower priced options for treating our disease. Apparently some of our elected servants actually know and believe this kind of change is needed which is righteous and overdue for us, (I would like to see whom is against it and whom is for this Bill). The Pharma's have lobbyists and how there play book works we are not privy to right now.  The jungle of PCa needs some thinning out via machette's.
 
Great to see transparency.  Show me any new drug for PCa, that is actually low or reasonable in price...I hope to see examples I might have missed something!!!  eyes
Links:
 
 
 
 

Post Edited (zufus) : 5/4/2011 5:56:18 AM (GMT-6)


142
Forum Moderator


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 6949
   Posted 5/4/2011 8:10 AM (GMT -6)   
Zufus,
 
I am confused. Your post title implies that this has been enacted ( "- Is Law Now")
 
What I find is that it has been introduced only.
 
I'm amazed that anyone would think that it even could be legal to pay off a company to delay a generic (for me it is grossly immoral and constitutes criminal conspiracy - organized theft). I guess we need a law for everything these days.
 
Thanks for bringing this up.

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/4/2011 8:37 AM (GMT -6)   
I thought it read at the link to new york times that it passed, maybe passed the house and senate...awaiting the Pres.????

People wonder why I question things....my uro-doc started it all (LOL)!

Tim G
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 2301
   Posted 5/4/2011 9:47 AM (GMT -6)   
It is certainly important to provide new drugs at a reasonable cost, but the pharmaceutical companies who spend years at considerable cost researching drugs, most of which do not make it to the market, must recoup their costs somehow.   Once the patent period is over, generics should be inexpensively available.

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 5/4/2011 11:23 AM (GMT -6)   
This link seems to have the most current status report on the bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s27/actions_vote

Post Edited By Moderator (James C.) : 5/5/2011 8:50:45 AM (GMT-6)


compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7205
   Posted 5/4/2011 11:51 AM (GMT -6)   
Ohio:
 
You make a very good point. Isn't the big new drug (one of them) just a SLIGHT improvement
on Keto...?
 
The Keto is like $100 and the new one is like $5000? (I'm just making up numbers but I believe the ratio is correct). But the new drug does have a better SE profile, I think.
 
Still, it makes one pause, especially if you don't have great (or any) insurance.
 
Mel

clocknut
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 2667
   Posted 5/4/2011 11:53 AM (GMT -6)   
No manufacturer of generic drugs, as far as I know, has ever introduced a new, effective medication for the treatment of prostate cancer or any other disease.  All they seem to do is reverse manufacture what other actual pharmaceutical companies have already developed, perfected, and marketed.  I just think we need to be very careful about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.  Sure, it's easy to hate or mistrust the big pharmaceutical companies, but they're the innovators and the risk takers, and if their profit margin becomes unattractive, the impetus to develop new and better drugs may just evaporate.  I don't see the major pharmaceuticals as being charitable, benevolent organizations.  They're in business to make a profit, and they do that by creating drugs that people want and need.  I'm glad there are generic equivalents, but I would not want to see any steps taken that would deter the big pharmaceuticals from doing what they do.

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 5/4/2011 12:46 PM (GMT -6)   
You make a good observation there, Clock, well said.
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos margin
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06, 2/11 1.24, 4/11 3.81
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/10

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/4/2011 12:52 PM (GMT -6)   
Purg- thanks for link update, go back on it, using the edit icon top right corner, then place your cursor over the last letter in the weblink (like you are going to add letters) only press space bar. It should light up and then submit it..you are done with editting and making it a clickable event.

Hey the discussion a free for all....doesn't bother me how it flys..enjoy!

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 5/4/2011 12:58 PM (GMT -6)   
zufus - i must be doing something wrong, i tried what you said 3x and it didn't work.
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos margin
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06, 2/11 1.24, 4/11 3.81
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/10

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/4/2011 1:06 PM (GMT -6)   
Ok let me see:

www.opencongress.org/bill/all



Here is another mentioning it:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-27



You can revist the Twilight Zone here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk


fixed a couple links to work. The first one has html coding embedded in it and I can't find a way to fix it.

Post Edited By Moderator (James C.) : 5/5/2011 8:49:21 AM (GMT-6)


biker90
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2006
Total Posts : 1464
   Posted 5/4/2011 10:00 PM (GMT -6)   
The problem that I see is that the big companys prices are totally outrageous and if they continue this way, the government will step in and do something they don't like.  We have Obamacare because the docs, ins cos. and drug firms couldn't get their act together and make some reasonable arrangments.
 
I haven't had and expensive drug experience with PCa but had to buy several doses of a drug at $1100 per dose for lung cancer treatment plus chemo at $3300 per infusion.
 
Sorry I just don't buy that the drug cos. are justified with their policies.
 
Jim
Age 76. Diagnosed 11/03/06. PSA 7.05. Stage T2C Gleason 3+3.
RRP 12/7/06. Nerves and nodes okay.
Catheter out on 12/13/06. Dry on 12/14/06.
Pathological stage: T2C N0 MX. Gleason 3+4.
50 mg Viagra + .05 cc Trimix = Excellent Results
PSAs from 1/3/07 - 8/02/2010 zero.
Next PSA - July/2011
Lung cancer dxed 6/08. Surgery followed by chemo. In remission since.

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7205
   Posted 5/4/2011 10:12 PM (GMT -6)   
Biker:
 
I agree, especially when you hear that drug X costs $50 overseas and $5000 here. It makes no sense
 
Mel

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/5/2011 5:10 AM (GMT -6)   
Biker - knows first hand (won't see doubting you)

compiler- that is called marketing....I searched the prices on Lupron many years ago and compared what we are charged vs. other countries....you would love the transparency of those findings I kind of knew it like Kreskin would (ahead of time)...why do you think I preach the Gospel (LOL) of us getting ripped off? In Spain Lupron was about 1/3 of what it costed here, back from 2003 or so.

Dr. Premoli uses estradiol patches on his patients, no Lupron and or using heavily expensive stuff, he is not 'IN it to Win It for himself-$$$$'...has great results and cheaply. We are told it is junk and will kill you in like 24 hrs. type B.S. I could present other examples, but everyone believes Lupron is your only salvation thanks to excellent marketing skills over the years. I say offer patients all choices and let's see the findings and true market forces at work, if something is junk it will fall on its own merits. I think many are kept from casodex, because no profits for the docs, so Lupron (LHRH) is the go to drug of choice (a no brainer for their ledgers). Now back to your reg. scheduled program (lol).

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7205
   Posted 5/5/2011 8:38 AM (GMT -6)   
Zufus:


Are some folks just put on Casodex and if that works (ie: lowered PSA) nothing else is added?



Mel

Post Edited By Moderator (James C.) : 5/5/2011 9:04:00 AM (GMT-6)


clocknut
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 2667
   Posted 5/5/2011 8:51 AM (GMT -6)   
OK, Mel, can you provide an example of a Drug X that costs $50 overseas and $5000 here? 
 
However, whether or not that's true, would you feel better if the situation were reversed and a drug company charged folks in a Third World country $5000 for a drug we can buy for $50 here in the States?  No one would feel very good about that.  It seems to me that if they want to market their drug to the world...and let's face it, people in underdeveloped countries get sick and need drugs, too.....and if they want to stay in business, they have to develop a pricing strategy that allows them to do that profitably.  I just read a study by the CATO institute that looked at flaws in the way the different prices charged in different countries are usually compared.  The drug companies have to deal with certain countries that subsidize costs, others that impose price controls, others where the cost of living is woefully low, others that barely control the manufacture of drugs and allow them to be sold over the counter and without prescription, and still generate a profit and sufficient money for continuing R&D.
 
It may well be true that the particular drug I need is incredibly expensive, but according to the CATO study, the American prices are not out of whack when ALL drugs sold in developed countries are compared.  On the other hand, if only 10 drugs are compared, the results may look very skewed one way or the other.
 
I think the best idea I've seen in this thread is that patients should ask for older, proven, less expensive drugs whenever possible, and certainly for generic equivalents when they're available.

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7205
   Posted 5/5/2011 9:10 AM (GMT -6)   
Clock:
 
No, I can't produce specifics, but I know I have read this and the numbers (prices) I gave you seemed about right.
 
Perhaps others can provide details.
 
Have you not heard this?? I thought it was a well-known fact
 
Mel

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/5/2011 9:16 AM (GMT -6)   
Clock- decent advice and additions

Mel- remember the game Clue (lol): Dr. Labrie (Canada), Llyodd Ney (paactusa.org), flutamides (casodex), monotherapy (yeah monotherapy is effective and works...probably not as profittable for the uro-doc=mega clue). Google Dr. Labrie and read his many papers and such...labelled as the founder on mono-therapy using this.

Would I be labelled a 'transparenter' for trying to make things clearer and known in PCa? Or maybe a 'cluer' for placing discussions. I love labels fits in nice boxes..LOL!
I know I am a questioner...that goes without a title or label. (lol)

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7205
   Posted 5/5/2011 9:23 AM (GMT -6)   
Zufus:
 
I'd say a CLUER.
 
You are a most valuable contributor here.
 
In terms of transparency, if you mean that you make things clear, well... sometimes it is difficult to fathom your comments. But maybe I just have chemo-brain without the chemo. Call me advanced!
 
Mel

clocknut
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 2667
   Posted 5/5/2011 9:26 AM (GMT -6)   

Mel, you're probably right.  I know that certain HIV medications that are very expensive here are distributed virtually for free in Africa as part of a humanitarian effort to eradicate that disease.  There are probably other examples as well, but at least in the HIV arena it's unfair to complain about the cost here vs. there.  In fact, the pharmaceutical companies may even deserve some praise for doing this.

Don't get me wrong.  I've felt the sticker shock of drug prices myself, and I especially wish that my insurance would cover the cost of drugs like Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis when used for physician-directed rehab.


zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 5/5/2011 9:35 AM (GMT -6)   
Mel- Love it....objectivity... a "CLUER"...I am going to take that label and likely put it into a bio and other threads...

Mel- do you know any Spanish perhaps you got the chemo called' Cabeza-attackzel
muy fantastico por Cinco de Mayo.... Free at Last.

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7205
   Posted 5/5/2011 9:57 AM (GMT -6)   
But Zufus, there are a few times when I have NO CLUE what you are talking about!!!
 
<G>
 
Mel

Postop
Regular Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 385
   Posted 5/6/2011 11:33 AM (GMT -6)   
A comment on an earlier post by clocknut:

"No manufacturer of generic drugs, as far as I know, has ever introduced a new, effective medication for the treatment of prostate cancer or any other disease. All they seem to do is reverse manufacture what other actual pharmaceutical companies have already developed, perfected, and marketed. I just think we need to be very careful about killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Sure, it's easy to hate or mistrust the big pharmaceutical companies, but they're the innovators and the risk takers, and if their profit margin becomes unattractive, the impetus to develop new and better drugs may just evaporate. I don't see the major pharmaceuticals as being charitable, benevolent organizations. They're in business to make a profit, and they do that by creating drugs that people want and need. I'm glad there are generic equivalents, but I would not want to see any steps taken that would deter the big pharmaceuticals from doing what they do."

Drug companies get a patent on new drugs that lasts 20 years from the date of invention. During that time, they have exclusive rights to make and sell that drug (except for pirated drugs from overseas). They can charge what they can get, that's how they make back their investment and make profits. Only when the patent runs out can generic companies make copies and drive the price down.

The issue is what drug companies do after their patent expires, to keep making money. The way the system is supposed to work, is that they need to cut their prices at that point, and hope that they have other new drugs in the pipeline under patent that can maintain their business. It's understandable that they would still like to charge high prices for the old drugs, but the system shouldn't support that. The drug companies can pay generic companies to delay release of the generic competition; they can file lawsuits, they can release me-too drugs, like time release versions of the old drug that have no real benefit, or they can have PR campaigns to bash generics and discourage doctors from prescribing them or make patients scared of taking generics. That's free enterprise, you should expect the companies to do what they can to make money, fair or not. The role of the FDA and government is to control some of these abuses, and give generic drugs a fair shot at the market.

Think of it this way. If Pharma knows that once their patent expires, that the profits from that old drug are going to drop like a stone, that will give them every motive to come up with new and better drugs. That benefits everyone, especially us.

142
Forum Moderator


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 6949
   Posted 5/6/2011 2:35 PM (GMT -6)   
For price variations, just look at Cialis.
India - less than $1 a pill and then a twofer deal vs. $21 a pill at the "agreed price" with my insurance (no idea what retail is).
 
It is not 100x, but 42x is just as bad.

clocknut
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 2667
   Posted 5/6/2011 4:57 PM (GMT -6)   
Good point, 142, though the fact that the average wage in India is $145 for blue collar and $335 for white collar workers may have something to do with the pricing schedule there.  That and the fact that, operating without U. S. patent restrictions they're able to cheaply reverse engineer these drugs.  I'm not complaining.  In fact, I'm using some of their version of Levitra (though it's not doing anything for me).  I would certainly prefer not to have to go this route, though.  It doesn't feel quite right to me.
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
Forum Information
Currently it is Friday, June 22, 2018 1:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,974,534 posts in 326,186 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 161252 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, Soletosoul.
407 Guest(s), 16 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
Foo223, mattamx, GoBucks, lymenc4, steve55777, holo100, getting by, Pratoman, Hibee, Fairwind, DJBearGuy, Old Mike, F8, 1039smooth, TheJay, limey