Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses Medicine Patents The Almighty Buck

Another Pharma Company Recaptures a Generic Medication 372

Applehu Akbar writes: Daraprim, currently used as a niche AIDS medication, was developed and patented by Glaxo (now GlaxoSmithKlein) decades ago. Though Glaxo's patent has long since expired, a startup called Turing Pharmaceuticals has been the latest pharma company to 'recapture' a generic by using legal trickery to gain exclusive rights to sell it in the US. Though Turing has just marketing rights, not a patent, on Daraprim, it takes advantage of pharma-pushed laws that forbid Americans from shopping around on the world market for prescriptions. Not long ago, Google was fined half a billion dollars by the FDA for allowing perfectly legal Canadian pharmacies to advertise on its site. So now that Turing has a lock on Daraprim, it has raised the price from $13.50 a pill to $750. In 2009 another small pharma company inveigled an exclusive on the longstanding generic gout medication colchicine from the FDA, effectively rebranding the unmodified generic so they could raise its price by a similar percentage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another Pharma Company Recaptures a Generic Medication

Comments Filter:
  • by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:05PM (#50578259)

    Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.

    Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.

    Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.

    • by Jiro ( 131519 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:12PM (#50578323)

      Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.

      They can't, because of the loophole (which is not explained in this article, but is in other articles like http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi... [sciencemag.org] ): You are not allowed to sell a generic equivalent unless you can prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version. In order to prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version, you need to do trials that compare it to the nongeneric version. The company that owns the nongeneric version refuses to sell you any, so you can't do trials, so you can't prove it's effective, so you can't sell it.

      • by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:35PM (#50578533)

        There are no generic manufacturers for Daraprim because of the low volumes sold. This startup bought the exclusive right to sell the drug in the USA, which is why they can jack up the price.

        Other countries still sell it for low prices. The cost of the drug in Canada, or the UK, or Mexico (if you trust their pharmacies) make a trip out of the country worthwhile.

        • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @07:32PM (#50579027)

          Now a good trick is to convince doctors to not prescribe this drug if needed, but prescribe other drugs that may be effective, or even recommend a summer vacation to Canada. Part of the problem is that doctors are too far removed from costs, and they'll prescribe a drug without realizing the economic impact; even if patients can afford it because of insurance, it raises costs of drugs overall thus health costs continue to rise.

          • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @11:01PM (#50580125)

            or even recommend a summer vacation to Canada

            That would be preferable to buying from online "Canadian" pharmacies, which aren't that at all but mostly fronts for Russian organised crime. You'll be shipped generics from India, not Canada. It's not as bad as it sounds because they depend on repeat customers so they work pretty hard to keep customers happy (you generally get the real deal, your credit card won't get ripped off, etc), but it's still taking a bit of a gamble.

            • by lsatenstein ( 949458 ) <lsatenstein@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @01:38PM (#50584303) Journal

              or even recommend a summer vacation to Canada

              That would be preferable to buying from online "Canadian" pharmacies, which aren't that at all but mostly fronts for Russian organised crime. You'll be shipped generics from India, not Canada. It's not as bad as it sounds because they depend on repeat customers so they work pretty hard to keep customers happy (you generally get the real deal, your credit card won't get ripped off, etc), but it's still taking a bit of a gamble.

              I live in Canada. I refute what you wrote. I have generic medication. It was not manufactured in India or Russia, but in quality controlled labs here in Canada. And since there are about a half dozen major pharmacy chains, these organizations do not want to be sued for providing harmful medication. Ergo, they validate the generics before allowing them in their pharmacies.
              The result of having generics is to cause the originators to moderate their selling prices. If my supply of one generic is $10.00, the non-generic might be sold at $12.00 (a max of 20% markup over generics.)

              Come to Canada and buy your medication, or find a partner living at the border who will take your prescription to the Canadian pharmacy. Just pay him for the service, which would include the cost of the medication.

      • Surely the drug still sold by GSK in the UK would still be considered the "original drug", no? I mean, I would presume that when GSK was selling it in the US, they'd have been free to import it themselves from their UK subsidiary without anybody blinking an eye, right?

      • Your comment is the real meat of this story. All outlets are being lazy and stupid by making the story all about this one unethical businesskid.

      • Incorrect. If brand-name manufacturers had this sort of power over generic drug approval, then there would be no generic drugs. The people who are saying that they can withhold consent to having their drugs used in bioequivalency trials are doing so based on a court case that never went to trial, about a company (mis)using REMS (a restriction placed by the FDA on certain dangerous drugs) to keep other companies from having their product. Daraprim is not a REMS drug AFAICT.

        The real reason why there are no generic versions of Daraprim is because creating one and getting one approved costs a lot of money. When Glaxo was still selling the drug at a relatively low price, there was no incentive to make a generic because said generic couldn't be competitive. Now that Turing has marked the price up, a generic is far more feasible, but it will still take a considerable amount of time before one gets on the market. And even then, it might not be worth the risk that Turing will just lower the price and undercut any would-be competitors.

        Rob

      • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @12:39AM (#50580429) Homepage

        You are not allowed to sell a generic equivalent unless you can prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version. In order to prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version, you need to do trials that compare it to the nongeneric version.

        This is not correct. From the FDA [fda.gov]:

        The ANDA process does not require the drug sponsor to repeat costly animal and clinical research on ingredients or dosage forms already approved for safety and effectiveness.

        The generic drug manufacturer needs only to prove that their version is equivalent to the original (details also spelled out at the above link.)

    • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:13PM (#50578329) Homepage

      Or go to Mexico. Or any other civilized country.

      Or perhaps, hammer your hapless elected representative to allow for 'free trade' in pharmaceuticals. Remember that concept? The world is your oyster. It's time that gobalization benefited the majority of the population for a change.

      • How did they ever excuse the restrictions in the first place, quality control?

        • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:27PM (#50578473) Homepage

          Corporate profits.

          In case you haven't noticed, American politicians are more than willing to entrench corporate profits into law.

          When pharma buys a law, you can make damned sure it's only pharma who benefits. Likewise, when the copyright cartel buys a law, it's only a good thing for them.

          Basically when corporations buy laws, they write it, give themselves exemptions and loopholes so they control the outcomes ... it's a stacked deck, by a corrupt process which says the more money you have the more access to "democracy" you have.

          Me, I think shit like this is pretty much demonstrating how the US has sold the farm for a couple of magic beans in the form of "intellectual property". Free markets? Who wants one of those when you can guarantee corporate profits and not have to work for it?

          I hope this CEO gets mauled by bears.

          • by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:32PM (#50578509) Homepage Journal

            Corporate profits.

            In case you haven't noticed, American politicians are more than willing to entrench corporate profits into law.

            This is why we should all vote for Donald Trump. Bush and Clinton will do whatever Big Pharma tells them to do, but Trump won't.

            • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:58PM (#50578727) Journal

              This is why we should all vote for Donald Trump.

              Clearly, you have some expertise with pharmaceuticals.

            • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              Technically speaking that is quite true, Trump would never do what they tell him to do. Trump would only do what they invited him in to partner with, no bribes, Trump would demand a full piece of the action. No piece of the action and Trump would try to destroy them because competitors must be destroyed. The bigger the corporation the greater the harm, so this would make things even worse (of course his potential competitors will go nuts on spending to block him, if and only if it looks like he is really g

          • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:56PM (#50578695) Journal

            Free markets? Who wants one of those when you can guarantee corporate profits and not have to work for it?

            Or, it just may be that "free markets" don't exist, have never existed and cannot exist, and this is just a snapshot of what late-stage capitalism looks like.

            When it's dog eat dog, the big dog eats and sick dogs die.

            LISTEN CAREFULLY: There is no "free market" solution to health care costs. Not drugs, not hospitals, not doctors. How would you feel if you lived in a small town and the doctor came out to your house to see to your sick child and you were told, "You're child won't live the night without this drug. I've got exclusive rights to the drug and even though it costs me $0.25 to make, I'm going to charge you $100,000 because it's a matter of supply and demand and your dying daughter has just increased your demand."

            There is no "free market" solution to health care costs because sick people are vulnerable. Their families are vulnerable. And people with the last name, "Inc" will gladly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar.

            • Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)

              by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @07:45PM (#50579133)
              There's another good reason why there's no free market in health care: It's too hard to comparison shop.

              Ever get a bad Twinkie? You know, one of the Generic brands that just isn't very good? Maybe you tried two or three brands before you found one you like better than Twinkies. Me, I like the Safeway brand better than the Hostess one.

              Now, try doing that for a heart transplant. See, you don't have enough information. It takes one taste to know a bad Twinkie and you're out $3 bucks for a pack of 'em. It takes 8 years to know what goes into a heart transplant and you're probably only gonna ever have the one.
            • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @08:25PM (#50579401) Homepage

              Or, it just may be that "free markets" don't exist, have never existed and cannot exist, and this is just a snapshot of what late-stage capitalism looks like.

              I live in a country with socialized medicine ... I agree with you completely.

              I think any system which allows some douchebag corporation to buy the rights to a drug and jack the price up by that much is inherently flawed.

              And I believe a government in which industry can buy themselves laws which suit their own purposes is doomed to fail, and is likely in the middle of failing.

              America has been coopted by corporate interests. And there are way too many politicians telling us this is the way forward.

              Buying a drug so you can make it artificially scarce and jack up the prices by that much? That's not a "free market" ... that's a system which is so utterly broken as to be scary.

              The modern form of "capitalism" is pretty much a cancer on the world. It's nothing but greedy douchbags with politicians in their back pocket giving them laws which allow them to manipulate the system as they see fit.

              • by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @10:59PM (#50580119) Homepage

                The problem is, government regulation and interference is why the company is able to buy exclusive rights to the generic drug in the first place.

                The government isn't the solution here. Government is what is causing the problems.

                As others have stated, the drug is available very cheaply outside of this country. However, the government will not let us import the drug. If we were able to, the local company would be forced to drop the price or stop production. That is how capitalism works.

                Unfortunately, the USA is not capitalist any longer, at least not in the way it pretends to be. The problem is the politicians getting in bed with the corporations so that laws which benefit the corporations - and only the corporations - are rammed through. The problem is not capitalism, because we don't really have it anymore. The problem is corruption.

                So you are correct - we don't have a free market. We have a market controlled by the government, with the government controlled by the corporations.

                A free market without the government bending to the will of the corporations wouldn't have this problem.

                Less government control is the best solution.

            • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @08:38PM (#50579495)

              Or, it just may be that "free markets" don't exist, have never existed and cannot exist, and this is just a snapshot of what late-stage capitalism looks like.

              In 2009 another small pharma company inveigled an exclusive on the longstanding generic gout medication colchicine from the FDA, effectively rebranding the unmodified generic so they could raise its price by a similar percentage.

              Oh dear. It's too bad that no "progressives" have had any power since 2009.

            • Or, it just may be that "free markets" don't exist, have never existed and cannot exist, and this is just a snapshot of what late-stage capitalism looks like.

              Eh you say this as if it were new information, even Adam Smith emphasised the importance of regulation. What you're trying to weasel-word advocate for here is the abolition of capiltalism in its entirety, which not only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the economic nature of capitalism, it's never going to happen, mostly because no better alternative exists. "Late stage" capitalism as you call it is mostly doing fine, continuing to improve standards of living, make technology cheaper, and put out o

          • When pharma buys a law, you can make damned sure it's only pharma who benefits

            The lawyers benefit, too. They're the ones write the law, after all.

      • by gijoel ( 628142 )
        Chances are your elected representative thinks 'free trade' is an excuse to berate poor countries into enforcing punitive IP agreements. They have to answer to their political masters, political lobbyists.
    • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:26PM (#50578447)

      Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.

      Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.

      Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.

      Unless the startup just drops the price back down to put the enterprising company out of business.

      The whole idea behind drug pricing is really weird. How do you determine a price for something that can literally mean the difference between life and death? What happens when you have things like drug plans, insurance, and regulations to ensure quality. I really don't know how you'd expect a market to properly function.

      • The whole idea behind drug pricing is really weird. How do you determine a price for something that can literally mean the difference between life and death? What happens when you have things like drug plans, insurance, and regulations to ensure quality. I really don't know how you'd expect a market to properly function.

        This is a hard question for new drugs. But this drug is old, and I think the answer is really easy. The patent should have expired by now. There should be nothing stopping another company (or maybe a nonprofit) from also producing the same drug and selling it at a more reasonable price. In the meantime, people can apparently buy the drug outside the united states for much less.

        There are laws against importing drugs from other countries (even ones approved by the FDA), and that is not in the best interes

      • Once the enterprising company has spent the money developing it, there wouldn't be much incentive to stop just because another player dropped prices. It would be then just a battle for whoever had deeper pockets.

    • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:34PM (#50578525)
      The problem is, you CAN NOT get an approval for an alternative generic. This shitty fucktard invoked an FDA clause allowing this company to use "closed distribution". I.e. this company can pick and choose to which customers it sells the drug in exchange for discounted pricing.

      Why does it matter? - To market a generic drug you need to show that it's equivalent to an existing drug. And Turing can block any such clinical study - a classic Catch-22. This loophole should be fixed, but given the dysfunctional state of the Congress any bill fixing this will probably be encumbered with a prohibition on abortions and more NSA spying.
      • by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @07:31PM (#50579021)

        This loophole should be fixed, but given the dysfunctional state of the Congress any bill fixing this will probably be encumbered with a prohibition on abortions and more NSA spying.

        Eh, I think this case may be outrageous enough to get them to close this particular loophole, and here's why: it's an indefensible perverse incentive, Big Pharma doesn't need it, and the last thing the lobby wants is for politicians to be talking about drug prices in general. Right now their stock prices are falling because of Clinton's comment, and most people working in biotech or pharma think Shkreli is an asshole* and would happily feed him to the wolves anyway. What they need is a very targeted bill that prevents this particular abuse but doesn't touch any other part of the wider industry's business model. I think they could get broad bipartisan support for this - it's the kind of no-brainer that allows politicians to take credit for something without having to address real-world problems.

        (* Most of us have scientific backgrounds, and Shkreli is exactly the kind of humanities-major business-weasel we've despised since college. Actually, worse, because most econ majors don't eventually stalk the families of former employees. No one else will cry when his BMW is repossessed.)

    • Or alternatively, a company could possibly run "treatment tours" to the UK with complete packages. Not sure if that would fall afoul of the law against Amercians shopping on the world market mentioned in the intro blurb though.

      • "Or alternatively, a company could possibly run "treatment tours" to the UK with complete packages"

        Medical tourism is still legal, and many Americans are indeed going to India for major surgeries. Here in Arizona, bus tours from retirement communities to get prescriptions filled in Mexico are big business. If you drive I-8 between Tucson and San Diego, you will see a small exit called Algodones, leading to a single large hotel. Another casino in the middle of the desert? No, it's a place where you stay over

    • Isn't the problem though that the insurance companies are the ones that pay for the drug, so there's no incentive for your European holiday, just a general reaming to the entire US population in the form of more inflation of the health insurance market? (Plus Mexico/Canada is closer...)

    • That's ridiculous. It doesn't cost just a dollar to manufacture and sell critical drugs like this.

      It costs a few cents. That's how much it retails for in India.

      The summary doesn't mention the name of the active ingredient, on slashdot that's pretty inexcusable. Don't give the market name importance.

      The real story isn't the egomaniac Ceo, he's doing what's on his job description. The story is the complete absence of checks and balances. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with your country? They have a nation

      • by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @07:43PM (#50579119)

        Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with your country?

        How long of a list do you want? Cronyism, nepotism, and more corruption than you could discuss in a week. Worse than some in certain areas, but not totally unique. Most of us from the US on Slashdot know about it and discuss it. Convincing the masses of the problems and working toward solutions is another story. Again, not unlike other countries where the masses live in extreme poverty and don't revolt, while the bureaucrats live like kings. Our poor just happen to be better off than your poor (I think)

  • by cosm ( 1072588 ) <thecosm3&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:12PM (#50578313)
    this is one of those stories where if everybody on slashdot who fucking hates big pharma posted links on their facebook/twitter/g+/instawhatever, it could probably boil over to one of those flashpoint social media stories that gets the company to own up to being fuckbags.

    it seems that's the only way things change these days...voting sure doesn't do shit...
  • The post is saying they're the only manufacturer selling in the US. The patent has expired. Another company can make it and sell it here if they want.

    • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:19PM (#50578377) Journal

      Sure, and after you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars buying the equipment and the chemicals and hiring people to do it, Turing Pharmaceuticals "sees the light" and drops the price to 50 cents using the profit they've collected up to that point to stay afloat. Then they buy you out of bankruptcy with the rest of their profit and burn your facility to the ground as a message to any other investors who think they can stand up to them.

      Then they raise the price to $751/pill, just to make a point.

      • Because there are no pharmaceutical companies with more money than Turing?

        Furthermore, even if the new company does go bankrupt, Turing doesn't get to just buy out whoever they want. Another drug company can offer more money than Turing. Turing can't undercut everyone (especially much larger companies) forever.

        This is just regular price gouging. You can try to sell flashlights during as power outage for $100 for only so long. Furthermore, wasting your time and profit potential undercutting competitors i

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The problem is deceptively simple. This is a drug with a small market. No pharma company, large or small, is willing to invest many tens of millions to get approval when it will take decades to make the investment back.

          Also, if some company took this route Turing would simply match or beat their price until they stopped. Since Turing didn't need to spend money on approval they can beat anyone else's price indefinitely.

          This is a case where the markets don't work.
          • Are you saying that they don't have to pay for approval, because they already paid for approval?
            • You can get approval for a generic copy of it. But you must prove that it compares the same or better than the original drug. That requires having plenty of the original drug to compare with, and Turing is not selling. The drug is not available on the open market or from any pharmacy. Several companies are doing the same thing to prevent drugs whose patents have expired from being replicated.

    • by Blrfl ( 46596 )

      Getting an existing medication to market is still very expensive even if the IP costs you nothing.

    • It is perfectly legal for patients to import this drug from overseas for their own use for a little over a dollar per pill. There is no problem.

    • No they can't. There are a million hoops to jump through to prove your generic is as good as the original. And if Turing won't sell you the original to test, then you are out of luck.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Because that's what they're doing: Killing people by taking their medication away from them.

  • Scum of the Earth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:16PM (#50578355)

    People and companies that do this sort of predatory business are truly Scum of the Earth.

    I don't care how legal it is, this is just pure scumbaggery at its absolute worst.

    "I don't care if you die, I need to make a profit!"

    • by no-body ( 127863 )

      Will this catch fire as the story of the dentist shooting this famous lion? Hardly, but it's much worse and the folks doing this are in good company protecting them - crooks altogether, shame them publicly!

    • The problem is there is no clear line between legitimate pricing and "scum of the earth". The truth is, all pills cost pennies to make, and the difference between that price and the selling price is to support a particular business model and share price. This is the same for Turing as for Big Pharma. Turing needs the money to expand his company. Big Pharma need the money for the same reason. Anytime you grant a monopoly on a product, capitalism is no longer capitalism, with all the assumptions about competi

    • by fnj ( 64210 )

      "I don't care if you die, I need to make an OBSCENE profit!".

      FTFY.

    • Today, during the first day of his visit to the US, someone asked Pope Francis I what he thought of Martin Shrkeli. His response (and I'm quoting here), was, "I'd like to snap this little fucker's back like a piece of celery."

  • by Timmy D Programmer ( 704067 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:27PM (#50578461) Journal
    There are many other laws that prevent abuse of dominance in a market. Hopefully all of this noise will attract the attention of those who enforce those laws.
  • Lets see if this is enough to get those laws overturned and let Americans shop around for a generic equivalent.

    Nope. Because Congress has its lips firmly wrapped around industry lobbyists private parts in exchange for campaign contributions.

    • by OhPlz ( 168413 )

      I'd like to see a list of names of the people responsible for this FDA provision that enables this asswipe to control distribution. It's interesting that none of the linked articles mention how that got passed.

      • So many times this.

        The story is NOT that some jerk is doing business unethically. The story is that the FDA is preventing the market from establishing pricing. We let it slide when USPTO prevents competition because it's expensive to innovate. But exclusivity via FDA? That is not something we want.

  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @06:37PM (#50578547)

    ...I know how I'd spend my last time on Earth.

  • What is needed / what will result, is a marketplace on the dark web, allowing frictionless free enterprise as our Founding Fathers intended, using units of exchange which have real intrinsic value.

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/... [techcrunch.com]

    • by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @07:33PM (#50579041) Journal
      The problem with the US health "system" is that it even relatively wealthy patients are at risk of bankruptcy paying for it. Just bite the 'socialist" bullet and introduce a sane UHC system like most other western nations did 30-40yrs ago. Also "the invisible hand" == "government regulation", by that I mean even your "frictionless free enterprise" cannot exist without some form of property law.
  • by AdamThor ( 995520 ) on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @07:10PM (#50578857)

    I guess their CEO (Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli) harasses people on the internet as well.

    See:
    http://gawker.com/lawsuit-scum... [gawker.com]

  • What I'm wondering is, how much does it cost to get sole marketing rights to a generic drug? This seems like the kind of thing where a nonprofit or NGO should form to buy the rights to all the generics, and then sell the drugs at or very close to cost - until, that is, the loophole that allowed Turing to do what they did is closed.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper ( 991155 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @09:51AM (#50582069)

    ...and this problem stops. Immediately. The pharmaceutical grifters wouldn't have a clue as to how to operate in an unprotected, global, competitive environment.

People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.

Working...