Doctors Call Out Novartis For Insane Pricing On Cancer Drug
from the as-they-should dept
Novartis has been in the news lately for the lawsuit filed against it by the US government for kickbacks it allegedly gave to doctors for prescribing certain drugs. As we noted about that case, it should be no surprise that this sort of activity happens, given that the incentive structure we've created with patents is so extreme. Here's one example of at least some principled doctors striking back against Novatis. Over 120 cancer researchers and doctors have published a paper calling out Novartis specifically for its pricing on the cancer drug Gleevec (marketed as Glivec outside the US). The doctors point out that it can cost over $100,000 per year for Gleevec currently. And, Novartis has been continually jacking up the price. There had been concern when the drug was first introduced a decade ago, that it was priced way too high at $30,000, leading the company's then CEO, Daniel Vasella, to acknowledge the complaints, but to argue that it was "a fair price." Well, now the company is pricing the drug at more than three times what it thought was a fair price, and it should be no surprise that people think this is outrageous profiteering by abusing a government granted monopoly to charge way more than any fair market price would allow.The paper these doctors published points out that such high prices undoubtedly causes harm to patients who need the drug. The lead author of the paper told CNN that this whole situation is unsustainable, and something needs to be done to bring prices down to a more reasonable, market-based level. He just focused on Gleevec because it's his area of research:
"These price increases do not reflect the cost of development of drugs or the benefit they provide to the patient," he told CNNMoney. "They are simply related to the drug companies' wish to increase profits beyond a reasonable range."Of course, one key way to help drive down prices is to do the obvious: stop granting government-given monopolies on the production of such drugs. That, alone, is the reason why the prices are so crazy in most cases. Thankfully at least some countries have recognized how ridiculous this is. India recently blocked Novartis from trying to patent a slightly different version of Gleevec, which means that the company will finally face some real pricing pressure from generics in that country. One would hope that other countries would do the same, and recognize that competition isn't a bad thing. It might just save lives.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gleevec, kickbacks, pharmaceuticals
Companies: novartis
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First they lie about the costs of production. They then knowingly deceive the people, that as physicians, they are sworn to protect. Sounds to me about the same as the classic example of treachery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@PRMan Try again, with thought
Why does the word "atheist" scare you so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: religious perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liability Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liability Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liability Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liability Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liability Issues
If the increased risk of large settlements is an issue, we should see this with other drug manufacturers as well. So get rid of the monopoly patent and let's see what price the market sets for this drug and its associated settlement externalities, shall we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another part of the price gouging is the expectation that when O'care is fully implemented they will start to take a larger hit in the quarterly earnings.
What with regulatory over burden and uncertainty I am not surprised that they are doing this right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think that's the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet another bad idea
That coudl produce undesired results. The reason for patents is without them cos will not invest in R&D becasue if a product is successful in teh mktplace others will copy it. Then there would be no such drugs.
Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin? Neither does anyone else. Why? There was no protection for creations in his day so he like everyone else protected their creations by keeping them secret. Civilization has lost countless creations and discoveries over the ages for the same reason. Think we should get rid of patents? Think again...or just think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
You do realize that the pharma industry first developed in Germany and Switzerland BECAUSE there were no patents on chemistry in both places? The early R&D centers all moved to those countries because of the lack of patents.
So, uh, no. Wrong again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet another bad idea
Of course, if I wanted to be most truly evil I'd try to lock up both my product and the method I used to create it forever and ever. Oh wait... did I just sum up the driving force behind modern IP law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yet another bad idea
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
NO copyright, NO patent, only trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
Actually we can get very close with new materials like carbon fiber that have a good resonance and some new research on the matter.
http://www.instructables.com/id/A-carbon-fibre-violin-i-made-from-scratch/
http://www. telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9716271/The-secret-behind-a-Stradivarius-imperfection.html
S till, I dare you to get a violin patent any patent and construct from that an exact copy of any of those "inventions" described there.
You probably won't be able to do it, since after the 80's patents started to get more and more vague about methods and processes. As a resource for knowledge that is a pile of crap today, that is why nobody look at it anymore for inspiration everyone goes to a hacker forum.
Further have you see how many "secrets" companies have?
They don't disclose everything, they don't teach anybody how to do it, they still use secrets a lot, from pressure settings, to ingredients, ratios etc. You wouldn't be able to produce a Strativarus even if you wanted too, because the secret to make it would still be secret, patents don't make everyone magically start teaching others how to do it.
Fucking culture does however, that is why open source culture is more important than the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
I dare you construct any invention from those fillings.
Further secrecy lives on, companies don't disclose all that is needed to produce anything, so I pretty much doubt that even with patents you would be able to produce a Strativarus.
On the other hand open research which is done independent of patents already enable us to understand how it was constructed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
Heard of proofreading...?
There is ample evidence of drug development working just fine without patent protection. There is also ample evidence of big drug manufacturers using patent protection to limit supply and massively increase prices beyond the cost to develop and manufacture with a reasonable profit, not to mention trying to extend protection beyond when the patent was supposed to end. It's extraordinary that you can defend a system that actively works against the supposed purpose of drugs: saving lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another bad idea
You do realize that the R&D for the VAST majority of drugs is actually funded and performed by universities, not the pharma companies?
You also realize that marketing is far and away the largest budget item for big pharma companies?
The knowledge of how to create a Strad is lost because he chose NOT to share it with anybody, not because there weren't patents at the time. The idea that patents would have spread that knowledge is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kind of stuff is outrageous.And so is the ever increasing price of Health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RnD
Either way they do not actually carry the burden of the actual reserch. The rest of us do.
Remember that big pharma is in the business of selling treatments, not cures. Cures cut into their bottom line. As put forth in business journels et al - profit is the only corporate responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative accounting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Granted Monopolies
For most things the free market works better than state-granted monopolies. When monopolies are necessary or highly desirable, as in the case of utilities, the rates monopolists are allowed to charge should be regulated in the public interest -- the moreso when the product the monopoly is granted on is one with inelastic demand as is the case with life-saving drugs with no real substitutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sell your product on quality, not a forced monopoly
Did you know the formula for Coca-Cola is available on the Internet? Then why not make some yourself? Sure, you can't sell it as Coke because of copyrights and trademarks, but will your friends drink it? Or will they prefer Coke just because of the name?
So why can't Pharma companies use the same approach? They could say, "Sure, you could get a generic drug, but buy ours because of the brand name and reputation of quality that we've built up". Oh, right, they don't have to worry about competing on quality when they have a government enforced monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
Jeff
NC Leukemia Webmaster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]