Republican Administration Maintains Exclusivity Stance in GLP-1 (Tirzepatide) Compounding Dispute

[hotdog!]

They should be able to profit, of course! But there must be a more sensible cap to the price gouging. $1000 a month? Even $550-650 is ridiculous. I'll bet they've long since recouped the money invested and made handsome profits to boot. After x years (not 2036) they should be forced to negotiate price caps similar to that other countries have negotiated for this drug. What does Tirzepatide cost in other developed European countries?

Google says in the UK, Mounjaro without insurance is 179 pounds sterling, or ~$230 USD. I imagine that's the 2.5 mg dose.

Reddit's Zepbound sub, someone visited London did a private doctor visit for 200 pounds, where a 3 month supply was 400 pounds ($515 USD). They got 3 months of 7.5 mg and 3 months of 10mg in the same visit.

 

[keangkong]

We've had a global (or near-global) agreement to socialize pharmaceutical research and it didn't work?

TIL!

You didn't mention an agreement previously. As to what you described previously, governments would contribute money to funding this research and it would be open source. Nothing stops governments from doing so already. But they don't. They obviously don't want to do so voluntarily. What you now envision is that all the governments, or most, would get together and agree to do what they don't do now. It's hard to imagine governments entering into such agreements. It's even harder to imagine them abiding by those agreements when they have previously chosen not to spend their money that way. You envision a selfless world where countries voluntarily spend money on these projects. But when it's pointed out that they don't do so, you then include an agreement. At best, what you propose would be completely ineffective. That's okay. We'd still have drugmakers. However, what worries me is that you refer to this as being part of an agreement to "socialize" things. That often means, and strictly meaning requires, that private companies be forced out of the market place. At that point, you'd be effective stopping most successful drug development in the world. I value human life too much to support what you advocate. Good intentions does not necessarily translate into good policy. Are modern drug companies full of warm and fuzzy people we'd all like to hug? No. However, they do a good job of getting the job done.

Communist countries don't have good track records in terms of advancing medical science.

 

[hexagonal]

You didn't mention an agreement previously. As to what you described previously, governments would contribute money to funding this research and it would be open source. Nothing stops governments from doing so already. But they don't. They obviously don't want to do so voluntarily. What you now envision is that all the governments, or most, would get together and agree to do what they don't do now. It's hard to imagine governments entering into such agreements. It's even harder to imagine them abiding by those agreements when they have previously chosen not to spend their money that way. You envision a selfless world where countries voluntarily spend money on these projects. But when it's pointed out that they don't do so, you then include an agreement. At best, what you propose would be completely ineffective. That's okay. We'd still have drugmakers. However, what worries me is that you refer to this as being part of an agreement to "socialize" things. That often means, and strictly meaning requires, that private companies be forced out of the market place. At that point, you'd be effective stopping most successful drug development in the world. I value human life too much to support what you advocate. Good intentions does not necessarily translate into good policy. Are modern drug companies full of warm and fuzzy people we'd all like to hug? No. However, they do a good job of getting the job done.

Communist countries don't have good track records in terms of advancing medical science.

It hasn't been tried because people haven't pushed them to do it. If the constituents don't demand it, the governments won't do it.

I suppose we could debate whether China is truly a communist country, but much of their pharmaceutical research is socialized, and they have been a heavyweight in the pharma research world for a while now. You'll find Chinese co-authors from Chinese universities all over all sorts of important research papers.

We spend a lot of money on a lot of things in the government. There's plenty I could suggest redirecting to make sure the actual scientists are getting rewarded just as handsomely with socialized pharmaceutical research as they are with private companies.

 

[ktg123]

It hasn't been tried because people haven't pushed them to do it. If the constituents don't demand it, the governments won't do it.

I suppose we could debate whether China is truly a communist country, but much of their pharmaceutical research is socialized, and they have been a heavyweight in the pharma research world for a while now. You'll find Chinese co-authors from Chinese universities all over all sorts of important research papers.

We spend a lot of money on a lot of things in the government. There's plenty I could suggest redirecting to make sure the actual scientists are getting rewarded just as handsomely with socialized pharmaceutical research as they are with private companies.

Frow what I know, a LOT of the info we have about bioregulators comes from Russia. Free market is great, unless the government steps in and says no, which then isn't really free market. Thus why we order our peps from the most communist country for pennies on the dollar instead of from the 'freest' country.

 

[keangkong]

Frow what I know, a LOT of the info we have about bioregulators comes from Russia. Free market is great, unless the government steps in and says no, which then isn't really free market. Thus why we order our peps from the most communist country for pennies on the dollar instead of from the 'freest' country.

Except China isn't really a communist country any more. Both India and China, in many ways, are more free economically, than the US. I will point out, however, that patent protections are expressly permitted by the US Constitution. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . ." (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 8.)

 

[keangkong]

It hasn't been tried because people haven't pushed them to do it. If the constituents don't demand it, the governments won't do it.

I suppose we could debate whether China is truly a communist country, but much of their pharmaceutical research is socialized, and they have been a heavyweight in the pharma research world for a while now. You'll find Chinese co-authors from Chinese universities all over all sorts of important research papers.

We spend a lot of money on a lot of things in the government. There's plenty I could suggest redirecting to make sure the actual scientists are getting rewarded just as handsomely with socialized pharmaceutical research as they are with private companies.

China is a communist country. I'm fine with people pressing their governments to research pharmaceuticals so long as the governments do not seek to restrict private companies from researching and developing drugs.