Nobody can afford that drug, including the taxpayers.

.

It's the ones that seem to be on every network 24x7.

.

"And how much does that one cost?"

Here's the thing: The ads are designed to build demand from patients, who will ask their doctor if it would work for them. The doctor says, "It might, but it's not covered by your insurance. It's very expensive."

Then, the patient contacts his or her insurance provider and asks why they don't cover that medication. When enough people ask, the insurance company gets in touch with the Pharma company and negotiates a real-world price. Then it adds the medication to the highest co-pay category in its pharmacopoeia.

The doctor prescribes the drug to his patient and the pharma company starts raking in the bucks.

That's how it works. That's why those ads are everywhere. Build demand and it will get prescribed. The Pharma company will negotiate a real price once the demand is established.

Right now, the hot item is Hepatitis C drugs. There are, I think, three on the market now, and they can actually cure that dangerous illness. So, demand is high, and there is competition. They'll still cost a small fortune, but they'll end up being covered by people's health insurance companies. Money will change hands and someone will get rich.

Without me asking, both of my doctors suggested that I take either Xarelto or Eliquis --- both heavily advertised on TV.

They don't tell you this on TV, but if you get a big bleed with them, there is no way to stop it --- so you'd bleed to death.

Not wanting to exsanguinate, I stick with Coumadin.

And also, those 2 drugs cost well over $200 each.

You don't have to test frequently for clotting time. However, as you say, long acting drugs can't just be turned off.

It's a trade-off, I guess. My primary care doctor generally opts for proven, older generics. He's a very sensibly guy.

My principle is that if a drug hasn't been on the market for at least 10 years then you become the one of the test subjects.

Most often, they'll do the job. If they don't, then you can try something else.

retails for a little over $21,000 a month!

Viagra is a lifestyle drug.

But how about this: We build a pharma factory on Fort Sam Houston and have it make off-patent drugs. Which we sell to the consumer at cost plus 5 percent, the profit going to reduce the deficit.

version, and could only do so on a limited basis.

First of all, it was "free" because it was only used in clinical trials until two months ago (which makes it free). It was only just approved by the FDA, in November 2018. See:

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm627093.htm

Second, it's because it's a so-called "orphan" drug (designated for extremely rare diseases); such drugs receive extended exclusivity rights. So this is a real issue to be discussed. Talk amongst yourselves.

Next, note that this is the "list" price for the drug. An insurance will probably be charged far less for it, and an individual might be able to still receive it for free.

As for the cost to taxpayers: for this specificl rare drug, it's going to affect only a small population (the incidence is 5 people per 1 million). Cumulatively, though, these orphan drugs can run to a lot, because there are a lot of similarly rare diseases. Drug companies don't want to develop, market, or sell some of these drugs because there is no profitability in it. It's a problem, because some of the companies that pick up these drugs are unscrupulous. In this case, I think the pharma company did develop and test the drug itself; it wasn't a pickup.

I have a friend who has been suffering a different rare disease for the past year (a form of amyloidosis: where abnormal proteins produced in the bone marrow start attacking body organs), and he was just saying that one of his drugs costs $10K per month. His insurance has been paying for it in full (I'm sure at a third or quarter of that "list" price), but it's still a bit of a shocker. Still, it seems to be keeping him alive right now, and appears to have delayed the need for a previously scheduled stem-cell transplant, which is mega-expensive as well, plus quite dangerous.

I'm not dismissing the issue raised by this post or the drug's stratospheric cost. The issue needs to be studied and addressed. I am just trying to be more specific rather than just reacting to the "shock" value.

getting my first meds on Medicare but I had not purchased part D because I do not take a lot of meds yet. The Pharmacist told me that I would be back soon with Part D. She said that everyone who did not get it at first ended up getting it because even antibiotics had gotten so expensive they were going without them because they could not pay for them.

We need to face the fact that almost everything in the medical field is there for only the very wealthy. We can get the dribs and drags of it but the real care is for them alone. Who can pay for these drugs? We are comfortable but we certainly can not.

The only good thing about that is that mostly they are the newer drugs and they are not tested like they used to be. We, the patients, are the test groups now so let the wealthy test them and perhaps by the time our children are old enough to need some of them they will be affordable and safe. Oh wait, who am I kidding.

Medicine has become something that almost makes me not want to have been a part of it.

There's some kind of built-in penalty. My drugs currently aren't much money, so I got the cheapest part D policy I could find, and it is pretty much useless. But, when I have to upgrade, the penalties won't be there.

I did not know that. I will get on that.

If you are subject to a late-enrollment penalty, you will pay your plan's monthly Medicare Part D premium along with an additional penalty calculated as one percent (1%) of the annual national base Medicare Part D monthly premium for each month you were without creditable prescription drug coverage.

advertised for people post-chemo. It's something that sticks on the back of your arm so you don't have to go in for a shot the next day. It's about $7,500 a dose! New dose after each chemo treatment. But I guess that's a steal compared to the drug Bernie is talking about.

I bet these drugs cost $10 to make. The rest goes into CEO pockets and to pay for the horrible commercials we see 24/7.

Fuck these motherfuckers.

Catalyst Pharmaceuticals bought the patent from the original developer, and they're the ones who jumped the price so high. Meanwhile I think the original owner is going out of business.

The US government (FDA?) needs to step in and nullify this patent, or suspend Catalyst Pharmaceuticals' license until this drug is made available at a reasonable price.