Here’s a snippet from Matt Taibbi’s lengthy, rambling piece at Rolling Stone on the profits that “Big Pharma” is likely to reap from COVID-19:
Take the example of remdesivir, which he describes as having been “pulled off the scrap heap†to become a major revenue-driver. Having failed to be approved as a treatment for hepatitis and Ebola, it is now one of the most in-demand products in the world, and its price isn’t quite so low as Gilead claims.
For one thing, ICER reported it costs just $10 of raw materials to make each dose of remdesivir. Generic-drug producers in Bangladesh and India were already making a version of it, and their price per course of treatment was $600. Meanwhile, Gilead’s own price for governments around the world — the price it settled on for everyone except American private insurers — was $2,340 per treatment.
Moreover, ICER’s assessment of remdesivir’s price relied significantly on the idea that it would actually help save the lives of Covid-19 sufferers. “If the drug doesn’t impact mortality, and only shortens recovery time,†says Dave Whitrap of ICER, “we figure a course of treatment is worth about $310.â€
To recap: Gilead, a company with a market capitalization of more than $90 billion, making it bigger than Goldman Sachs, develops an antiviral drug with the help of $99 million in American government grant money. Though the drug may cost as little as $10 per dose to make, and is being produced generically in Bangladesh at about a fifth of the list price, and costs about a third less in Europe than it does in the U.S., Gilead ended up selling hundreds of thousands of doses at the maximum conceivable level, i.e., the American private-insurance price — which, incidentally, might be about 10 times what it’s worth, given its actual medical impact.
and
The business model for Big Pharma is brilliant. A substantial portion of research and development for new drugs is funded by the state, which then punts its intellectual work to private companies, who are then allowed to extract maximum profits back from the same government, which has over decades formalized an elaborate process of negotiating against itself in these matters.
How big are these giveaways? Since the 1930s, the NIH has spent about $930 billion in research. Between 2010 and 2016, every single drug that won approval from the FDA — 210 different pharmaceuticals — grew at least in part out of research funded by the NIH. A common pattern involves R&D conducted by a small or midsize company, which sells out to a behemoth like Gilead the instant its drug makes it through trials, and obscene prices are set.
There is no scandal in Gilead’s or Pfizer’s making money. They are, after all, for-profit companies. That’s what they’re supposed to do. The scandal is that we’re subsidizing for-profit companies, not just through research dollars and purchases but in thousands of other ways. These are political problems and the failure of either political party to do much more than posture about the matter is a scandal and an outrage.
He is using Covid drugs as a platform but this has been a problem all along with Covid. Taxpayers pay for the basic research and for a lot of the commercial research. Private companies get the very large profits. But besides the subsidies I think the following has been key all along.
“Every other country in the world has a three-stage process for approving and pricing prescription drugs. Governments first ask if the drug is safe. If the answer is yes, it asks if the drug is effective.
If the drug passes those two hurdles, most governments then ask how much more effective the new drug is compared to existing medicines. This efficacy calculation becomes the starting point for price negotiations, which usually involve threatening to keep the drug out of the country’s state-insured pool of medications if the company does not come up with a reasonable price.
The U.S. either skips or botches these steps. First, there is no regulatory review that determines comparative efficacy. In the U.S., the FDA review ends after the first two steps: Once a drug is deemed safe and effective, it goes on the market.
Then comes the whopper: All FDA-approved drugs must, by law, be covered by Medicaid.”
We pay lots of money for new drugs that arent much better than older drugs. So we pay a lot more than they pay in other countries. Then the drug companies extend the patent buy making the same drug but in a different dose, say 300 mg instead of 275 mg. For that, they then get an extension of the patent.
Steve
I’ve been complaining about it off and on for as long as I have maintained this blog.
I don’t believe that’s the reason we pay more. I believe we pay more because of the bizarre notions of a free market we have here. It needs to be clearly understood: intellectual property law and even safety regulations are incompatible with a free market. I think that we need drastic reform in our intellectual property laws and reform in our safety and approval regulations. But that’s condemned as being against a free market. It’s surreal.
Humira is still “exclusive†until 2023 due to Abbevie’s legal strategies despite patent exclusivity running out in 2013.
They even beat back a lawsuit that their legal strategy was an antitrust violation.
Congress needs to step in and clarify a limited term for intellectual property rights means limited.
‘intellectual property law and even safety regulations are incompatible with a free market.’
No they’re not. Without intellectual property law and its associated enforcement mechanisms we’re back to the law of the jungle. If you can take the profits of my inventiveness just because you can (like the Han Empire does wholesale), why should I even bother laboring? You’re making Proudhon’s argument. As for safety regulations being anti-free market, are you saying a true free market should allow manufacturers to lie about the efficacy and safety of their products if they could get away with it? I doubt that you are.
What you and others here are complaining about isn’t the free market but rather crony capitalism, leveraging or purchasing the power of the government for personal or corporate benefit. I’ve always said it takes a government to enforce a monopoly, and with remdesivir we’re also seeing the additional problem of media outlets plumping it while denigrating or even censoring alternatives. It’s a full-court press marketing scheme, and it’s absolute BS, especially if the drug is at best marginally useful and also available as a generic. This is a case where I would be happy for OMB to put an end to it with an Executive Order, much as I despise EOs.
‘Congress needs to step in and clarify a limited term for intellectual property rights means limited.’
You mentioned it a paragraph above, a thing called a patent. Shame on Congress, the regulatory system, and the DOJ for allowing Abbevie and other companies to game the system. Unfortunately money talks and Congressthings and bureaucrats are too easily bought.
” it while denigrating or even censoring alternatives. ”
The only other proven drug is dexamethasone and I have seen no one denigrating it. People write pretty hopefully about the other experimental drugs for that matter.
Steve
Nonsense. It just means that you need to make money by selling things that people want to buy rather than by having done something that people wanted to buy once upon a time. Is a 15 year copyright term, “the law of the jungle” while a 99 year is civilized? Obviously not.
The Founders recognized that intellectual property is not a fundamental right. It is purely utilitarian. When its usefulness declines (as I think is the case now) it is completely reasonable to reduce its term or eliminate it entirely.
“scandal and an outrage”
When scandal and outrage become the norm in the corridors of power, and newly minted congressmen and women are courted and massaged and comfortably appointed by big money interests, what’s left for the young who know the system is gamed by looking at outcomes the mechanisms of which are carefully veiled?
What’s left? The old complain to the wind. The young march and chant and throw bottles and rocks and overturn cars until they age and tire.
It’s rigged! So what? That’s the way it is and if you can’t afford your medication AstraZeneca may be able to help.
But if they turn you down, don’t worry, it’s mostly snake oil anyway.