Epipen Controversy

Effective medication helps with the rising cost of health care. When medication is working, the patient’s visits to the hospital and doctor’s office will decrease. The cost of new medication is exceeding the buyer’s ability to pay for it, and pharmaceutical companies begin to lose money when the drug loses its patent. However, generic drugs become available for the medication, and patients can afford to purchase it to treat their disease or condition. National discussions with providers, payers, and health policy makers have seriously considered various solutions for mitigating drug cost, with the ultimate goal of allowing patients to access appropriate and necessary treatments (Li & Shane, 2017). The government no longer has to decide who gets the medication, and certain therapies because of cost. Insurance companies will now cover the drug in its generic form. On the other hand, the pharmaceutical companies can no longer profit from and generic drug, and are forced to make new and improved drugs for profit. The patient will benefit by getting the medication that is needed to have a better quality of

Supply, Demand, & Market Equilibrium: Appraising the price elasticity of supply* 〖(E〗_s) and demand* (E_p) of a medical device is vital. Based on geographical region, a consumer in 2013 paid from $4,400 to $17,301 for a total hip replacement (BCBS, 2015). To add scope, 2.5 million Americans undertook a total hip replacement in 2010 (Kremers et al, 2015). If J&J’s new artificial hip cuts overall cost by five percent, while increasing overall supply by 10 percent, the price elasticity of supply is two, and hence elastic (E_s > 1). Or, if quantity demanded rises 15 percent while prices decline by five percent, the price elasticity of demand is 2.72, and therefore elastic (E_p > 1). As such, the artificial hip is an elastic good. When a good is elastic, a price alteration swiftly results in a quantity demanded change (Investopedia, n.d.), and this important to any

In 2015, the pharmaceutical industry spent over 27 billion dollars on advertising. The two greatest components of this effort were promotional advertising and free medication sampling, which the pharmaceuticals invested 15.5 and 5.7 billion dollars respectively (“Persuading the Prescribers”). Promotional advertising involves direct contact with health professionals, the most common being extravagant lunch conferences held for physicians and their staff. On the other hand, sampling involves distributing free sample of medications to physicians, who then have a choice of providing these samples to patients. As a result of these methods, the industry has seen revenue around $400 billion with 90% of physicians having a relationship with a drug company (Campbell 2007). Moreover, the prices of prescriptions continue to rise; a copay of a generic drug is $11.72, preferred brand drug is $36.37 and a specialty drug is $58.37 (Coleman and Geneson 2014). Although the profits are immense in the numbers demonstrated above, it is no surprise when pharmaceutical drug companies elevate their prices even more. For instance, recently Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of their medication Daraprim from $13.50 to $750. Keep in mind, this medication is used for threatening parasitic infections, aids, and cancer with alternative options currently found to be inefficient (Pollack 2015). Another example of this practice involves cycloserine, a drug used to

The current debate over the Mylan Company’s near monopoly of the epinephrine market through its EpiPen shows what can happen without monopoly regulation. While the cost to produce an Epipen is around $30, the price to the consumer is around $300 each. The economic implications for a family that needs to keep the device on hand to save a life can be excessively high, the emotional results of not having one when you need one are debilitating. This monopoly is further enhanced by state-enforced regulations requiring that schools keep EpiPens in stock and the, so-called, EpiPen law enacted in 2013, which leave little incentive for other pharmaceutical companies to develop their own technology for fast-acting emergency devices. (Bartolone, 2016) Breaking Mylan’s monopoly will not only lead to new product development but lower prices for consumers for a life-saving delivery

Initially, from 2000 to 2001 the amount of money that was spent on prescription drugs had risen by nearly 20 percent as the cost of medication also rose. Lawmakers looked at different strategies such as including the drugs in medicare or having them be sold over the counter as insurers and consumers struggled to pay (Steinhauer). This substantial increase in drug cost did not go unnoticed. As the rising costs of drugs were passed onto insurers, they looked for solutions. One large California health insurer, Wellpoint Health Networks, saw a solution in having more drugs sold without prescriptions. The California insurer argued that top allergy drugs should be made more widely available and cheaper, and selling Claritin, Allegra, and Zyrtec, three top allergy drugs, over the counter would accomplish both of those things (Petersen “A Push to Sell”). Manufacturers argued against them, saying that such a move would be dangerous to the consumer, forcing them to diagnose themselves rather than have a professional do it for them. Some news in pharmaceuticals, however, had to do with criminal activities. The United States Food and Drug Administration investigated multiple cases of counterfeit drugs. In each of the three cases, the drugs were extremely expensive, one used by AIDS patients, another a growth hormone for people who cannot produce enough

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much, and rightfully so. Medication prices in the United States have been on a steady increase for decades, however, prices have been drastically increasing as of recent. Pharmaceutical companies have tried to justify these price increases due to the demand, the high cost of research, and the high costs of development and approval. Notwithstanding, the extent to which the prices have increased is not justifiable. Americans should be against these high medication prices and take action because pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of our healthcare system in order to capitalize from the sick. In order shed some light on this issue, the magnitude, scope, and consequences of these prices must be examined.

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

Pharmaceuticals in the United States have been on the rise for years and everyone is trying to find was to get cheaper medication. New generics, 4 dollar lists, and coupons have been a growing force in pharmacies in the past few years. Some might think, “There has to be laws against rising prices, right?” Well, sort of.

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much, and rightfully so. Medication prices in the United States have been on a steady increase for decades, however, prices have been drastically increasing as of recent. Pharmaceutical companies have tried to justify these price increases due to the demand, the high cost of research, and the high costs of development and approval. Notwithstanding, the extent to which the prices have increased is not justifiable. Americans should be against these high medication prices and take action because pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of our health care system in order to capitalize from the sick. In order shed some light on this issue, we must examine the magnitude, scope, and consequences of these rises in price.

U. S. citizens pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. This is an injustice that must be corrected. The "U.S. forbids the import of prescription drugs by anyone other than the original U.S. manufacturer, and even then only when the drugs meet all the approval requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)" (Barlett & Steele, 2004). Prescription drug prices are outrageously high in the United States because of the influence of advertising on consumer purchasing, the misleading statements by pharmaceutical companies about the cost of research and development of new drugs, the manipulation of patent laws, the antiquated laws regarding importation of

This is obviously a huge topic in bioethics debates, especially recently after various changes in Federal Healthcare protocols. Some people depend on pharmaceuticals as a daily part of their routine, requiring some medicine or other for a condition or health issue. A prime example of this is the recent hike in the price of epinephrine shots, commonly known as the Epipen produced by Mylan Pharmaceuticals. This medication has seen a huge increase in pricing rising from roughly $50 in 2007 to over $600 this year. This is a shot used for common allergic reactions and therefore is used or carried by millions of people every day. The concern then is that pricing will get too high and patients will have to do without some medications leaving them vulnerable or even helpless in the face of certain conditions.

The rise in costs of prescription medicines affects all sectors of the health care industry, including private insurers, public programs, and patients. Spending on prescription drugs continues to be an important health care concern, particularly in light of rising pharmaceutical costs, the aging population, and increased use of costly specialty drugs. In recent history, increases in prescription drug costs have outpaced other categories of health care spending, rising rapidly throughout the latter half of the 1990s and early 2000s. (Kaiseredu.org, 2012).

According to the KFF article, Medicare and Medicaid spending on each EpiPen increased from $71 in 2007 to $466 in 2015 (from Slavitt's letter), or 656%. This is clearly much higher than the inflation rate of roughly 20% over the last 10 years (i.e. prices are now 20% higher than they were 10 years ago). This means that the government is entitled to the vast majority of the $1,879,976,260 that is owed minus the rebates already paid.

EpiPens are arguably one of the most important devices for those to carry who suffer from life-threatening allergies. The auto-injector pen contains the drug epinephrine, which treats an allergic reaction, anaphylactic shock, in emergency cases. Recently, there has been an uproar among the public about the increasing prices of Mylan’s EpiPens. In 2007, the products cost was around $100.00 for a two-pack of pens. Now, however, the name brand is selling for over $600.00 a pair; resulting, in a 400% price increase. Different companies are now creating similar products in hopes of being more affordable and as efficient as the original EpiPen. Mylan Pharmaceuticals is even creating their own version of an authorized generic form of the EpiPen as well. In the first article, “Mylan Tries Again to Quell Pricing Outrage by Offering Generic Epipen,” by Andrew Pollack, focuses on just Mylan 's version of their EpiPen along with their increasing prices. The second article, “Can You Get a Cheaper EpiPen,” by Ginger Skinner, emphasizes on not only Mylan 's’ product, but also other generic products as well as a do-it-yourself. Both of these articles focus around the idea of an affordable, effective, and accessible off brand version of the EpiPen while also providing important side information about all of the products and risks; however, the second article offers more information about different generic products rather than just

Mylan’s recent press release about making a generic EpiPen presents an excellent topic for our upcoming report. We all know someone who suffers from allergies and should care about whether or not they can afford their life saving medicine. By choosing this topic, we would have various sources of communication to analyze in our report such as the original written statement by Mylan and the numerous responses from employees, competitors, customers, and Senators.