Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

tenderfoot

(8,424 posts)
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:09 PM Dec 2017

Price of 40-year-old cancer drug hiked 1,400% by new owners

Source: CBS News

Prices for a cancer drug called lomustine have skyrocketed nearly 1,400 percent since 2013, putting a potentially life-saving treatment out of reach for patients suffering from brain tumors and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Though the 40-year-old medication is no longer protected by patents, no generic version is available.

According to the Wall Street Journal, lomustine was sold by Bristol-Myers Squib for years under the brand name CeeNU at a price of about $50 a capsule for the highest dose. The drugmaker sold lomustine in 2013 to a little-known Miami startup called NextSource, which proceeded to hike lomustine's price nine times since. It now charges about $768 per pill for the medication.

<snip>

Henry S. Friedman, a professor of neurosurgery at Duke University School of Medicine, accused NextSource of "price-gouging" in an interview with the Journal, adding: "People are not going to be able to afford it, or they're going to pay a lot of money and have financial liability."

<snip>

Soaring prices for cancer drugs are a concern for both patients and doctors because financial pressures can lead to delays in seeking treatment that can easily surpass six figures per year. A study published earlier this year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found prices for 24 patented injectible Medicare Part B drugs rose an average of 18 percent annually over the past eight years on an inflation-adjusted basis. Prices continued to rise even when generic versions of the drug became available.

Patients with cancer are among the most likely to feel the pain of recent drug price hikes. Novartis (NVS), the Swiss drugmaker, is charging $475,000 per patient for its Kymriah treatment for certain types of blood cancers. Another blood cancer medication developed by Gilead Sciences (GILD) called Yescarta costs $373,000. (According to Bloomberg News, patients have experienced delays in getting the breakthrough treatment because of payment delays by both private insurers and Medicare and Medicaid.) The brain tumor treatment called Alecensa is priced at nearly $160,000 a year.



Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-drug-lomustine-price-hiked-1400-percent-by-new-owners/

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Price of 40-year-old cancer drug hiked 1,400% by new owners (Original Post) tenderfoot Dec 2017 OP
Fuckers!!!!! Chasstev365 Dec 2017 #1
Call my a cynic, but the profit is in treating cancer, not in curing it Siwsan Dec 2017 #2
Yes and no. BadgerKid Dec 2017 #14
Barbaric sakabatou Dec 2017 #3
Is this the free market not fooled Dec 2017 #4
Call it an inelastic product n/t wellst0nev0ter Dec 2017 #17
So we just need another pharm company to come in christx30 Dec 2017 #19
I thought the feds took Martin Shkreli out of circulation jmowreader Dec 2017 #5
Apparently no number two manufacturer sees a ROI exboyfil Dec 2017 #8
Shkreli was not convicted for jacking up drug prices csziggy Dec 2017 #18
I know that jmowreader Dec 2017 #21
Yeah and it should be illegal csziggy Dec 2017 #26
This is a business model exboyfil Dec 2017 #6
Wouldnt that suggest a lower price? jmowreader Dec 2017 #22
I think that is my point exboyfil Dec 2017 #28
And, this isn't a crime? Why? Frustratedlady Dec 2017 #7
Why don't the insurance companies put their foot down? n/t TexasBushwhacker Dec 2017 #10
Insurance companies are too busy making sure TheDebbieDee Dec 2017 #13
You can still get it from Canada for $50 a pill TexasBushwhacker Dec 2017 #9
Ebeneezers to the max benld74 Dec 2017 #11
This will continue to happen so long as one TheDebbieDee Dec 2017 #12
Under W Bush duforsure Dec 2017 #15
This is no isolated incident - it is becoming the norm. airplaneman Dec 2017 #16
No Greater Blight on Society Than Big Pharma! DoctorJoJo Dec 2017 #20
Not Sure They Qualify As Big Pharma, Jo ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #23
A drop of rain does not qualify as an ocean LanternWaste Dec 2017 #25
Whatever ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #27
Oh boy... jmowreader Dec 2017 #29
I Hope You're Right! ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #31
Criminal. sarcasmo Dec 2017 #24
Buy your drugs from Canada FakeNoose Dec 2017 #30
Convenient for those in boarder states... not so for most of the country. tenderfoot Dec 2017 #32

Siwsan

(26,173 posts)
2. Call my a cynic, but the profit is in treating cancer, not in curing it
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:14 PM
Dec 2017

And this country's health care is governed by a criminal 'for profit' medical cartel, eager to drain us all financially dry, without even a backwards glance.

BadgerKid

(4,541 posts)
14. Yes and no.
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 06:02 PM
Dec 2017

There is more than one way to get "cancer". To some degree it is a personalized disease. If the cancer arises due to an "imbalance" say in expressed proteins, it is conceivable that the "cure" (maybe a daily injection) is administered as a regular "treatment". Even nonsmokers can get lung cancer, so avoiding cancer is definitely not entirely a matter of "personal responsibility".

Still, I agree it's heinous to charge patients 100k+ Which ends up as out of pocket expense.

not fooled

(5,791 posts)
4. Is this the free market
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:19 PM
Dec 2017

at work?

You know, the one we are always told is so great because the invisible hand blah blah blah...

Geez, sounds to me more like the 21st century equivalent of looting and pillaging.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
19. So we just need another pharm company to come in
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 01:16 PM
Dec 2017

and make a generic version of the drug, since the formula isn't covered by patents and sell it for the $50. Then NextSource will have to lower their price. This just needs more publicity to make it happen.

See a need, fill a need.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
5. I thought the feds took Martin Shkreli out of circulation
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:23 PM
Dec 2017

The kindest and gentlest thing for the government to do in cases like this, where you've got a pill no one's making money on anyway, is for the government to buy it. We could set up a drug production facility at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, sell the product for cost plus 25 percent, and use the profits to reduce the deficit. The drug companies would much rather make dick pills anyway.

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
8. Apparently no number two manufacturer sees a ROI
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:34 PM
Dec 2017

for offering a generic. You may find it is just as expensive to become that generic instead of just paying the blood money.

csziggy

(34,119 posts)
18. Shkreli was not convicted for jacking up drug prices
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 09:49 AM
Dec 2017
Shkreli was convicted of two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud in August 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
21. I know that
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 02:45 PM
Dec 2017

I also know jacking the living shit out of the price of an old drug just for the hell of it is a Shkreli move.

csziggy

(34,119 posts)
26. Yeah and it should be illegal
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 04:29 PM
Dec 2017

But too many members of Congress get too much money from the pharmaceutical companies so it will never become illegal under our current system.

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
6. This is a business model
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:32 PM
Dec 2017

The drug's value has been increased by finding alternative usages for it. Still the numbers are limited so no financial incentive for a generic. The key statement is as follows:

The drug has gained renewed interest among oncologists because recent government-funded studies show its use with other chemotherapies can significantly prolong survival in patients with certain brain tumors, said Ashley Sumrall, section chief of neuro-oncology with Carolinas HealthCare System in Charlotte, N.C.

As part of agreeing to do a government funded study, perhaps a pricing option should be purchased from the manufacturer prior to conducting expensive government funded studies. Without price stability researchers can't do a CBA.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
22. Wouldnt that suggest a lower price?
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 03:08 PM
Dec 2017

I did a little investigation. This is a “small molecule” drug. It’s made out of chemicals. It doesn’t come from some exotic plant that only grows at the summit on 10,000 foot mountains, and it isn’t a biologic drug that has to be grown in a fermentation vessel (whilst praying that you get what you were trying to get....). If demand doubles, all they need do is tell the lady in the stockroom, “we’re going to need twice as much of everything on this list.”

And a lower price might encourage investigators to see what else it is good for.

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
28. I think that is my point
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 05:09 PM
Dec 2017

Buying the rights upfront with newer applications shifts the risk to society but also the benefit. The drug pricing (like all pricing) is driven by the supply/demand curve. A for profit company (and even non-profits that want to use revenue dollars in other areas) is going to want to maximize profit. This is why a case can also be made for price gouging during a disaster. I take the risk to load a truck full of ice to take down to a hurricane impacted area. I can sell that ice for $10/bag then I am going to do it. You limit the price to $2 by legislation then no guy with a truck bringing ice down.

I am personally ok with changing how we do drug pricing, but we must recognize that it will have a tendency to slow innovation. Both the research and cost should reside in the public sphere. Our mixed model is just socializing risk and privatizing profits.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
7. And, this isn't a crime? Why?
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:34 PM
Dec 2017

How does this differ from price-gouging...jacking up the price of generators during a flood?

They are cutting aid to the elderly for food stamps and medical care and then allowing jerks like these to jack up prices of drugs for cancer patients? I suppose that the next thing they'll do is jack up the price of caskets so those who died because of poor medical care or unavailable medicine or starvation can get one last jab before they are put to rest.

I don't care what their excuse is, it must be looked into and stopped, if possible. Does it even work or just prolong the misery?

 

TheDebbieDee

(11,119 posts)
13. Insurance companies are too busy making sure
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:57 PM
Dec 2017

single-payer (price control) never becomes the law of the land...

 

TheDebbieDee

(11,119 posts)
12. This will continue to happen so long as one
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 05:54 PM
Dec 2017

Is bent on impeding regulation of virtually ALL industries!

This is the result of a laissez faire government!

duforsure

(11,882 posts)
15. Under W Bush
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 06:30 PM
Dec 2017

I could be wrong but didn't drug costs increase around 400% under the last Republican President, w Bush?

airplaneman

(1,236 posts)
16. This is no isolated incident - it is becoming the norm.
Tue Dec 26, 2017, 08:03 PM
Dec 2017

Find a monopoly and charge the hell out of everybody. I have a number of personal examples.
Biologic = $3K a month. Cancer = $100K+ a year. It goes on and on and on. And heaven forbid if you dint have insurance it will probably be go to GoFundMe to find financial help as your only option other than refusing to be financially gouged and not getting anything . My latest insurance change says they pay 30% on pharmacy but will never pay more than $500 for a months supply of anything.
-Airplane

ProfessorGAC

(64,413 posts)
23. Not Sure They Qualify As Big Pharma, Jo
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 03:41 PM
Dec 2017

This is a little outfit, per this link.

"NEXTSOURCE BIOTECHNOLOGY LLC
Biotechnology

1-10 employees"

There a pipsqueak who just bought an out of patent drug and messed with the pricing. It doesn't appear they're actually a biotech firm at all. Just some pricing sharks.


[link:https://www.linkedin.com/company/nextsource-biotechnology-llc|

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
25. A drop of rain does not qualify as an ocean
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 03:55 PM
Dec 2017

A drop of rain does not qualify as an ocean, yet remove the one...

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
29. Oh boy...
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 08:16 PM
Dec 2017

Paging Skittles.

Someone needs their ass kicked over this:

http://www.nextsourcepharmaceuticals.com/press/Statement-Media-Coverage-Gleostine.aspx

"A recent report places the cost to develop and launch a single drug at just shy of $3 billion."

Dude! You bought a drug BristolMyers Squibb didn't want to make anymore because they didn't want to waste factory space making such a low-demand product, changed the name and jacked the fuck out of the price.

According to Vardanyan and Hruby's "Synthesis of Essential Drugs"
https://books.google.com/books?id=Jjc7KYWZdOYC&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=lomustine+synthesis&source=bl&ots=qS1gKS6G7z&sig=ywwYK38Mvl2X3JTdpfDOqCh3E6c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9t-jiqKvYAhWq5lQKHdi5Av4Q6AEIcTAL#v=onepage&q=lomustine%20synthesis&f=false

there are five ingredients in this product:

ethanolamine, which is cheap
cyclohexylisocyanate, which is also cheap
thionyl chloride, which they may be having trouble getting for two reasons - it's used in lithium batteries (the PRAM battery in your computer is one of these) and it's a nerve gas precursor
formic acid, which is REAL cheap
sodium nitrite, which is used to cure bacon so it's made by the cubic shitload

I feel this will not end well for them.

ProfessorGAC

(64,413 posts)
31. I Hope You're Right!
Wed Dec 27, 2017, 08:54 PM
Dec 2017

Speculators with no sense of the stakeholders, operating as a tiny paper shuffling band of pirates.
They're not big pharma! They're an organized crime gang!

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Price of 40-year-old canc...