Comments on: So What Does Jay Inslee Think You Deserve For Your Enbrel Investment?

By: Gabriele

Gabriele — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:43:52 +0000

I am frankly confused. Inslee is my representative, and in the past I have found him to be reasonable, responsive, and frankly I have never before noticed him mutilating the English language in this fashion. I cannot imagine what he was thinking, but it might be time for me to contact him again, and ask him to explain his reasoning (or lack thereof).

By: xargaw

xargaw — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:16:27 +0000

Inslee is often on the correct side of the issues, but he isn’t a terribly bright guy and appears to be easily distracted.

By: ratfood

ratfood — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:07:10 +0000

Bob says “thank-ya, thank-ya verra much…”

By: TalkingStick

TalkingStick — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:06:07 +0000

Someone needs to do a real study on just how much drug company profit goes back into research. Embrel is no exception in having been developed on taxpayer money. My guess is the facts as to just how little development money, excluding marketing, actually comes from the private sector would be shocking. I have wondered why no one has done such a study. If these biologics are too expensive for the private sector then let’s do it non-profit/government.

These current pricing of these biologics (along with over priced every pharmaceutical on patent) is simply unsustainable. When is someone going to tell the masters of the universe that the people are running out of money? The parasites are killing their hosts..

By: ShotoJamf

ShotoJamf — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:45:30 +0000

“Then again, I suppose they’ve conducted their own cost/benefit analysis and concluded what they’re doing now is the most profitable avenue…”

In other words, the analysts were directed to cobble up numbers that fit the profile that their bosses hacked up.

I’m definitely inclined to agree with you on the volume scenario. There are forty gazillion people out there who could benefit from such treatments…not to mention the production efficiencies gained by running larger capacities, etc…

By: demi

demi — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:43:41 +0000

Hey, Rat. See, the troll booth is Open For Business.
I’m a sucker.
All of today’s proceeds go to Bob’s dinners.
Rat can share.

By: ratfood

ratfood — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:39:50 +0000

I came across a bizarre claim from her cosponsor Jay Inslee. He seems to believe that these companies need to be granted a monopoly on these drugs so that investors can recoup the money the risk for developing them.

As a person with RA I have been forced to accept that the biologic treatments are priced completely out of my reach. I am confident that is the case with an overwhelming majority of RA sufferers. I can’t believe these companies make more money by charging outrageous prices to the lucky few who can afford it when they could lower the price and tap a vast number of new customers. I have no statistics to back it up but I would not be surprised if their sales volume increased by a thousand percent or more.

Then again, I suppose they’ve conducted their own cost/benefit analysis and concluded what they’re doing now is the most profitable avenue…

By: JoeBuck

JoeBuck — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:37:18 +0000

I have psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. A few years back my only choices were highly toxic drugs like methotrexate (which can damage your liver); I used Embrel for a while and now Humira. My wife and I fight our insurance company a lot over other issues, but they do spring for the bulk of the cost of the Humira, which would otherwise be almost $20K per year (Jane, I think you quoted a higher figure a while back, so maybe this is the price the insurer negotiated with the manufacturer). Thanks to these drugs, my skin is clear and my aches are minor (years ago, I was 30% covered with red welts and my hands, elbows, and neck were painful and stiff).

But in addition to all the NIH money that paid for the research that eventually produced these drugs, I’ve contributed over the years to the National Psoriasis Foundation which also provides funding. The drug company does shell out for the testing of the specific drug, and they can lose it all if the drug turns out not to work or the side effects are too bad. But there need to be limits.

By: wmd1961

wmd1961 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:36:06 +0000

There are a lot of players in research.

Scientists,
Technicians,
Administration,
etc.

Patents typically go to the Scientists who then get VC money to do further development. University’s will have an external research office that helps with this, lining up the VC and getting a chunk of future money. So there’s a little flowing back to taxpayers into University coffers. NSF/NIH doesn’t get any return beyond the advancement of knowledge.

The techs and admins (and an admin that understands how to get needed equipment within a convoluted procurement system is very valuable) get dropped at this point. This is not a good feature of the system, these players should share in rewards their work enables.

It’s worth thinking about whether an ownership stake for granting agencies makes sense – you file a patent from research supported by NIH, NIH gets 10% of profits for the life of the patent. The first problem with that is it makes grant authorities have a preference for research that is potentially profitable rather than basic research.

By: demi

demi — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:35:52 +0000

I’m sorry you have to pay so much for drugs.
Why on earth would you presume how much more or less anyone else here is making? Why? What world do you live in that gives you that information?
You are not the only one hurting. You do not know how much others are too.
Please hear me. Your presumptions just might be incorrect. Is that at all possible?
It’s a really hard world for a lot of folks. Some are here. Please don’t go out of your way to be hurtful.