The Death Of Ownership: Educational Publishing Giant Pearson To Do Away With Print Textbooks (That Can Be Resold)

from the you-don't-own-anything dept

It sometimes is difficult to get people to understand just how >utterly insane the college textbook market is. You have a captive audience who has no choice but to purchase what the professor requires (which is why it's doubly lame when professors require their own books). But even people who went to college a few decades ago may not be aware of just how much textbook prices have kept rising. A study from 2015 showed that college textbook prices had risen over 1000% since 1977. 1,000%.

Another BLS study from 2016 showed that, in the education space, the price of textbooks had gone up even faster than the cost of tuition (which is also skyrocketing).

In short: college textbooks are crazy, crazy expensive. And one way that people have dealt with this over the years is (1) by buying used textbooks, or (2) by selling back the textbooks at the end of the semester (or in some cases, both). However, that's the one factor that's acted as competition to the textbook market.

And the publishers want to do away with it.

The largest educational textbook publisher, Pearson, has now announced that it's going to phase out print textbooks and move solely to electronic textbooks. If you actually want a physical textbook, you'll only be able to "rent" it:

Pearson said students would only be able to rent physical textbooks from now on, and they would be updated much less frequently.

The British firm hopes the move will make more students buy its e-textbooks which are updated continually.

There's an argument that ebooks have certain advantages -- and can be updated much more quickly. Also carrying around a ton of textbooks can be a pain. But, we're once again left in a world where the concept of "ownership" is left open. I still have a bunch of college textbooks that I sometimes even refer back to. But under this system, if you stop paying your "subscription" fees, those can go away.

And, yes, there's value in embracing a more digital future -- but it's difficult to believe that Pearson is truly doing this to improve the value for students, rather than just upending the older market order, and taking away the ability for people to own and to resell textbooks.

Filed Under: captive markets, copyright, monopoly pricing, ownership, rentals, subscriptions, textbooks
Companies: pearson

Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750

from the because-fuck-you,-that's-why dept

When pharmaceutical companies defend outrageously-priced medicines, they often claim these massive profit margins are there to help them recoup the money dumped into research and development. But that has nothing to do with the high prices. R&D costs are consistently lower than companies portray them. The real reason for exorbitant drug prices is a monopoly granted by patents, which lock out all competitors for years. And when the patent nears expiration, pharma companies extend their monopoly by doing questionable things -- like testing high-powered, opiate-based painkillers on children -- just to extend the patent protection for another few months.

None of that, however, explains this: (h/t to Techdirt reader pixelpusher220)

Turing Pharmaceuticals of New York raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill last month, shortly after purchasing the rights to the drug from Impax Laboratories. Turing has exclusive rights to market Daraprim (pyrimethamine), on the market since 1953.

Daraprim fights toxoplasmosis, the second most common food-borne disease, which can easily infect people whose immune systems have been weakened by AIDS, chemotherapy or even pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

In this case, any research and marketing costs have long since been recouped (or at least amortized). The patents behind the drug -- all granted between 1951 and 1954 -- should be dead. Conveniently for Turing (and other rights holders before it), no company is offering a generic version.

Every time the drug has changed hands (and it's done it more than once), the price has gone up. But no other company has increased the price quite as much as Turing Pharmaceuticals has. Perhaps that's because Turing spent a significant amount of money to acquire an exclusive marketing license, but with none of the attendant patent exclusivity.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPXL) today announced that it has sold its U.S. rights to the Daraprim brand to Turing Pharmaceuticals AG for approximately $55 million.

Turing, of course, realizes this price jump -- which puts one month's supply in the new vehicle range ($45-50,000) at minimum -- is going to be tough on those expected to pay for it, but claims to have support in place to help absorb some of the ridiculous increase.

A Turing spokesman, Craig Rothenberg, said the company is working with hospitals and providers to get every patient covered. This includes free-of-charge options for uninsured patients and co-pay assistance programs.

This sounds like exemplary altruism in the face of a presumably unavoidable [hah] increase in price. But a closer look at what Turing is actually doing shows the company will be forcing patients to choose from all of two options:

For inpatient procurement, institutions can no longer order from their general wholesaler. Instead, they must set up an account with the Daraprim Direct program. Once enrolled, orders may be placed with the company until 6 pm Monday through Friday and will be delivered the next business weekday, because there is no weekend delivery at this time.

For outpatient procurement, patients can no longer obtain the medication from their community pharmacy. All prescriptions must be transmitted to a single dispensing pharmacy: Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy. Upon insurance verification and co-pay collection, the prescription will be mailed to the patient’s home, and most prescriptions can be mailed overnight.

This presents a problem for hospitals. Although the drug is low-use (it combats the effects of toxoplasmosis -- something that can cause serious issues for those with weakened immune systems, like cancer/HIV patients), it still is needed often enough that the two access routes just aren't enough.

My institution recently encountered a difficult scenario in which pyrimethamine was attempted to be obtained through the Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy. The patient in question was currently homeless, and therefore did not have a home or address to which the medication could be delivered. Additionally, the manufacturer did not yet have a system in place to address the situation.

This could have been extremely problematic, but fortunately, my institution is affiliated with a Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy and contracted to provide bedside delivery to patients prior to discharge. The patient was able to receive the pyrimethamine as an inpatient.

Turing, of course, defends the increased price by claiming the exorbitant profit margin will result in increased R&D. But let's take a closer look at what its spokesman is actually saying.

Rothenberg defended Daraprim's price, saying that the company will use the money it makes from sales to further research treatments for toxoplasmosis.

Translation: this money will be dumped into finding another variation to patent, thus locking out potential competitors and allowing Turing to continue charging whatever it wants for the medication.

They also plan to invest in marketing and education tools to make people more aware of the disease.

Translation: we will market the hell out of this new drug.

This sort of thing isn't exclusive to Turing. It's standard MO for all pharmaceutical companies. Rather than engage in meaningful competition, these companies are awarded lengthy monopolies on drugs and treatments by the US government. Turing is no different than Amedra -- part of the holding company acquired by Turing along with the Daraprim rights. But when Amedra acquired the rights from GlaxoSmithKline, it somehow managed to keep its price hike to a couple of dollars, rather than several hundred.

This huge price jump has more to do with the man running Turing, Martin Shkreli. Shkreli doesn't have a background in pharmaceuticals, but he does know how to run a hedge fund. And he's used this expertise to become highly-unpopular very quickly.

Since founding Turing last year, Shkreli has taken a page from what made Retrophin a high-profile--and controversial--player among small biotech companies. Retrophin's stated goal was ferreting out value in biopharma by acquiring assets with potential in rare and neglected diseases, a process that can mean acquiring an underused drug and jacking up its cost to take advantage of rare disease pricing.

Here's one of the moves Shkreli made as the head of Retrophin.

In September 2014 Retrophin acquired the rights to thiola, a drug used to treat the rare disease cystinuria. It was with Shkreli as CEO that Retrophin introduced a 20-fold price increase for Thiola, despite no additional research and development costs incurred by obtaining these rights.

Turing is basically Retrophin 2.0, or more accurately, Shkreli being Shkreli. Shkreli may have still been helming Retrophin at this point, had his own company not ousted him. In August, his former company also sued him, alleging financial impropriety.

It appears that Shkreli is a bit too comfortable operating in gray areas. The market-related shadiness alleged in the lawsuit appears to be just part of Shkreli's everyday business affairs.

In an uncommon move, Shkreli himself led the Series A financing, and Turing isn't naming any of its other backers, calling them "preeminent institutional equity investors" and leaving it at that. In a filing with the SEC last week, Turing counted 34 individual participants in its funding round but reported raising just $62.7 million.

This reported total of the funding round didn't match the claimed total ($90 million). Shkreli had an answer for the missing funding. And that answer was "Shut up."

A spokesman for the company declined to explain the $27.3 million difference, and further questions about the company's financials were met with a terse email from Shkreli asking FierceBiotech not to contact Turing again.

However, if you do feel like discussing the 5000% increase in Daraprim's price, feel free to take your questions to Shkreli himself, who is surprisingly accessible on Twitter. Just know ahead of time that you're too stupid to understand complicated business stuff, you don't represent anyone worth talking to, "everyone else is doing it," and shut up.

The unasked question has its answer: why did Turning flip the switch on a 5000% price increase? Because it can. And it's not just the people being prescribed Daraprim that will eat the cost. It will be every customer of every health insurer that covers the rest of the cost of these prescriptions. These additional expenses will eventually result in higher health insurance premiums. And while Turing is offering to help out those with little to no insurance, these costs -- whether they're absorbed by health care institutions or the government itself -- will be passed on to the general public as well.

Filed Under: daraprim, drug prices, generics, martin shkreli, monopoly pricing, patents, pharma, pharmaceutical pricing
Companies: turing pharmaceuticals