The High Cost of Cancer Drugs Explained Clearly

[Indolent]

Next time you hear about how the drug companies justify the high cost of drugs, such as Imbruvica, you should consider the content in this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=aabrV1O...(Not working as expected?)

[Pacificview]

She has a very valid point. These drugs are rediculously priced. I remember years ago the first flat screen TV was 15,000. Today that same TV is few hundred and of much better quality.Should be a similar mechanism for New drugs and then for the price to come back down to reality and affordability.

[Smith123456 in reply to Pacificview]

they are not ridicuously pricesd if you want them to exist in the first place, the issue is with our health system that doesn't cap out of pocket

[Pacificview in reply to Smith123456]

Yes, the out of pocket. Thats it in a nutshell.I was forced to go on Medicare at 65. So i chose the origional medicare and a plan G with no deductable excpept for the 200.00 once a year. The weak link is the plan D. Its the high copay for at home cancer drugs that is the source of my irritation. $1000 to $1500 per month copay for 2 or 3 pills a day and thats just one drug. What if a patient wants a combo??.

Since the US government does not have a problem printing money. They should print some more and lower the cancer drug copays on medicare recipients.

That is my point. I dont have a problem with a corporation making a profit, like this lady does.

I just want the goverment, insurance companies and pharmaceuticals to work it out.

Cancer patients on medicare should not be paying such high Part D deductables.

[KatieBlue in reply to Pacificview]

I’m fortunate to have a good part D through my former employer/retirement plan. My oop for ibrutinib now is $50/month. Prior to Medicare I was eligible for a program that dropped it to $10/month.

My copays are the lower of either Medicare or my part D plan.

If medicare says a drug copay will be 600 and my part D says 50, I pay 50. If medicate says a drug will be 25 and part D says it will be 40, I pay 25.

I looked into this 3 years ago before deciding on treatment, very concerned about the donut hole. I was so relieved to find out how it would work for my insurance options.

[Jm954 Administrator in reply to Pacificview]

That's what the patent and generic drug system is designed to address. It should provide for a return on the investment and then, after a period of time, the drugs become generic and can be made and sold much more cheaply by others.

The problem with generics is that they are mostly made in India and China with shockingly poor standards of quality assurance and even falsified documents are presented to the FDA who attempt to monitor the generics on behalf of the USA citizens who receive them.

Jackie

[AussieNeil Partner Administrator in reply to Pacificview]

No billion dollar clinical trials are required for new model TVs. While as consumers of high priced new drugs, we may not appreciate how the revenue is distributed, it's quite legal.

Neil

[HopeME]

Katie Porter represents an extreme position. Warren Buffet is a moderate Democrat and most would agree a wonderful person who has done much for others by investing his wealth in just causes. In fact all of his wealth will go to others upon his death. He is a huge proponent of share buybacks when it is the best investment opportunity for shareholders.

Companies engage in share buybacks when other investment opportunities are limited and buying in shares benefits shareholders more than the other opportunities ( R&D, cap-ex, acquisitions). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It is called capitalism. American capitalism is the envy of the world. Rewarding shareholders drives innovation which drives product development. Plain and simple. In the case of Ibutinib the product was developed by a smaller company that was acquired by Abbvie. Does anyone think the smaller company would have made investments in Inrutinib if there wasn’t an opportunity to enrich its shareholders via a sale? The system works. Please look at what it has given us as consumers. I am stunned by cancer patients who bemoan the American pharmaceutical industry despite all it has done for them. More broadly what would America look like today if Pfizer and Moderna weren’t highly successful and able to invest in Covid vaccines? Before you rip down a system please tell me what system you would like to replace it with? I’ll stick with what is working.

Best

Mark

[Indolent in reply to HopeME]

What Katie Porter does is brilliantly expose the fallacy that R&D costs are the reason for the exorbitant prices of a drug like Imbruvica (ibrutinib). What she plainly shows that the high prices are largely driven by financial and legal engineering. So whenever drug companies tell you that R&D is the main driver, they are not telling the truth.

Indeed capitalism is a wonderful thing. And capitalism thrives when competition is allowed. However, the drug companies have become exceedingly adept at gaming the patent system to stifle competition. Further, they have lobbied hard to protect the lack of price negotiation in the US Medicare system. Both of these factors have shielded them from being competitive. Thus the usual efficiencies of capitalism are being suppressed.

Finally, as we all know, CLL is a disease that mostly afflicts older folks, who largely rely on Medicare. The distortions of the US Patent system and Medicare price negotiations have made Imbruvica extremely expensive for US patients. Other countries have made it more difficult for the drug companies to abuse the system in a similar manner. The net result is that they pay much less for exactly the same medication.

[mk2045 in reply to Indolent]

I am with you, and I appreciate your response. I'm on acalabrutinib/Calquence. I am on Medicare with a Plan G and a Part D supplement. We don't qualify for assistance, and those nonprofits that offer assistance are a way for drug companies to shrug their shoulders and say, "But there is help." I'm glad for folks who get help, but help is not for us, and we are not "rich." Unless things change, I'll be paying $14,000 out of pocket each year, until they raise the price. My first month's supply was almost $2900. Orphan drugs or not --- where is it right that someone younger than myself, working and not on Medicare, who has a good insurance policy through employment, only pays $50 or so a month for the same drug?

[Smith123456]

you'll find that the system does not apply to 'orphan drugs=1. and to drugs that relatively few people use -these are not millions of people using bp drugs

[mk2045]

I keep trying to push this issue. It really is not political. It's just about something that is very wrong.