I don't know the yearly profit margins from when it got patented, if that is what you are asking? I do know this: 1. The offering price kept dropping, and dropping, and dropping. Why? 2. From looking through their material. 3. Heard from little birdies, from both ends Why can the profit margin change, despite it going up so high? Just another area in the cluster**** of inefficiencies in the healthcare market. I can't give you a solid answer on a fan forum, unfortunately. Why do they buy? Turing is looking at the potential in the inelasticity of the product, in addition with the R&D potential. Nothing has been done in decades in this area; they are already on their way in creating a larger portfolio of products, which will also treat different similar sicknesses. Expanding a consumer base on an inelastic product portfolio, which because of a portfolio (allowing choice, aka price discrimination), will be able to separate customers based on their ability to pay, and not get criticized by it. Win & win. Hard to find a working alternative though. A very inelastic product. I'm sure y'all realize I'll probably be following this closely. I have a lot of vested interest in it. Once again, quick responses. May have missed something.
Come on, let's not overexaggerate things. Obviously, there are places that need some regulation from human evil. Jees. Why do you hate these guys so much? Reagan is generally considered a positive president, and Friedman is considered one of the greatest economists of all time. America, and the field of economics would be dramatically different without those two. For the worse, imho. But that's off-topic. No actual humans will die. Nobody that needs the drug will not be able to get the drug. If they do not get it; it's on them. If they cannot afford it, it will be at the original reduced price. Because it's a small business company with a small consumer base, they can, and have been able to, make the ends meet. Realize that the price hike is really affecting the insurance companies.
Interesting. I don't understand how drugs work. I have some good idea for medical. For drugs, since I rarely have a need for it, don't know much about it, except that it's expensive relative to other countries. If you have insurance, do the insurance pass the additional cost onto you? Do they not cover some drugs due to costs to them? Do they get to negotiate the cost of drug with drug providers? Is there an OOP limit to the insured? If you do not have ins, can you access the drug and at what price? Same as what insurance companies pay? If you go to an emergency room and do not have ins, do they limit what drugs you can get based on said, pricing?
At this point, it might start shifting a bit more into economic principles; not totally though. I don't have a PhD or anything, but studying it. Correct me if I am wrong, other peeps. Expensive relative to other countries: I believe this has something to do with the people pay higher taxes for more comprehensive national healthcare, that has been in place longer than Obamacare, and this eliminates the extreme drug price. But the costs doesn't necessarily disappear, so to say. Many consider it to be more efficient. But national healthcare debate pros and cons is not relevant to this thread. Matters per insurance, but highly doubtful. This is why doctors were whining: insurance companies were pressuring them because they don't want to pay the price hike. Price may go up a tad, nothing extensive. Realize that many drugs, without insurance, cost a buttload. For covering drugs, matter per insurance. I would believe they cover nearly most that are relevant. They do not have much, if any, negotiating power with drug providers. I can't provide this about Turing. Not sure what your OOP question is referring to. Yes. They are having a "price discrimination" for the people that cannot afford it. Turing knows that, to avoid bad press, they can't have somebody not get treatment because of costs. Well, the bad press happened anyways :grin: If somebody doesn't get treatment, it is because they didn't want to. If they cannot afford it normally, they can get it for $1 or $13.50, depending on circumstances. But if you can afford it, it will be the same cost as insurance, I believe... Don't know how hospitals work. Realize that nobody will be not have access to the drug. Imagine it as a taxing the 1% type thing. Based on the numbers, that is all he needs to do to break even. Heck, iirc, majority of the drugs will go for $13.50 or less. Once again, fast responding. Hope I didn't miss anything.
You said the drug was not profitable. I was asking why you believed it was unprofitable. The rest of what I mentioned dealt with why I felt the drug was likely profitable. Hope that makes more sense. So IPXL was looking to dump the drug? Honestly, it looks to me like IPXL got a knock your socks off offer from Turing to sell what they believed to be something inconsequential and boring in their CorePharma deal 10 months prior. Their PR states as much. I don't care about the morality of things, but it seems pretty clear that Turing knew very well they could take advantage of this situation. Also do you mind clarifying what you wrote with points 1 and 2 a bit? Was IPXL originally looking to sell Daraprim and couldn't get what they were looking for? Did the IPXL materials say the drug was unprofitable? Can you explain this a little more? I don't understand "Why can the profit margin change, despite it going up so high?". I completely missed it, but what's your vested interest? Also, if you do have some deeper insight into this deal....do you know if Impax can just develop their own generic of Daraprim? It would seem they would be the most likely candidate to do so.
Not in this case. He is only buying the rights to the drug so he collects royalties. It's like if you buy the rights to the Beatles music. You can charge whatever you want for people to use the music, but you aren't going to create new Beatles hits. So they have increase the price from $1 originally to over $700 a pill. They don't care if people can't afford it or die. It is pretty evil.
doing a little midnight reading.....holy smokes. this guy has two hedge fund failures under his belt, plus being turfed from the public company he founded over allegations he misdirected company resources for his and investors of his failed hedge funds benefit, followed by a lawsuit for $65m against him. All by his early 30s. and a whole lot of allegations of shadiness, manipulations and embellishments. (all this before the price increase scandal) There's really no saving grace. His pedigree is the seamier side of finance with a history of overt risk taking. Not your standard biotech start up CEO. His current scheme seems to be to buy up and then 'value price' older treatments. I don't know what your relationship with him might be, jb, but I'd trust nothing you're hearing from Turing. Just a mess and these things, and people, tend to implode eventually. Maybe they already have? I think you're mistaken to give him the benefit of the doubt on this or anything else. He's a hype machine. Like a bad player on a lower tier of the pink sheets.
And just think about this: guys like this will be giving presidential candidates millions and millions of dollars.
Doesn't this guy have some hedge fund background? Not surprises with his cocky, arrogant, pompous attitude
After the trainwreck he left at the last pharma company he was at, I'm amazed that he managed to get a job as a CEO of a 2nd one.
http://gawker.com/lawsuit-scumbag-pharma-price-gouger-stalked-and-harass-1732357240 Well he was stalked a former employee and sued him (case was later dropped) then after he left his own company he was sued for $65 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/arlenew...artin-shkreli-for-65m-his-reply-preposterous/
It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second - Steinbeck Cannery Row.
Perhaps I'm not following something here. If Turing is still going to offer the drug at a reduced price for those who can't afford it but try to gouge insurance companies what is stopping insurance companies from just changing policies to say they won't cover that particular drug so then people can get it cheaper from Turing? Also you seem to be saying that the damage from this won't be much but even if insurers cover this they obviously want to recoup the increased costs which will be reflected in more expensive insurance rates.
