FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
from the perfect-gin-and-tonic-for-fun-and-profit dept
As Techdirt recently discussed, the drug pipeline is running
dry, as Big Pharma's patents are beginning to expire, and the drug companies are freaking out. For years they have been spending more money on research and testing and getting fewer results. This year alone they are
going to have 11 patents expire on drugs that bring in approximately $50 billion in revenue to the big pharma firms. Of course, the flip side to this is that consumers can start saving about 95% on the price of those drugs, as generics hit the market. The
drug companies have gotten to a point where the incremental increases in
efficiencies are so small as to be meaningless. What is coming is more personalized and targeted treatments for diseases -- treatments that do not
require bulk production of a specific chemical, but individual testing and
personalized care, and not lifetime treatments and repeat sales, but cures. The treatments will be expensive to begin with, but they will become less expensive over
time. The business model of healthcare is about to
change dramatically, and Big Pharma needs to do something to maintain their profits.
Unfortunately, they seem to have chosen the path of regulating the competition
out of existence, rather than competing and innovating.
One way the drug companies have been coping is to repackage and rebrand
health food supplements. Drugs like Lovaza, which is nothing
more than the fish oil you can get in health food stores, and
lovastatin which has been in use for roughly a thousand years
(800 AD) in the form of red yeast rice. In the case of
lovastatin, the FDA banned the supplements because they are "identical to a drug
and, thus, subject to regulation as a drug." That is very convenient
for the drug company, which now charges monopoly rents on the product -- which can increase prices at ridiculous levels.
More recently, the FDA banned 500 prescription drugs that had been on the market and working for years. To be fair, it was really 50-100 drugs (pdf), made by different companies, but that just highlights how there was actual competition in the marketplace for these drugs, which has now been removed. For
all of the drugs, there is either a high-priced prescription version, or all
the small manufacturers have been removed, leaving a virtual monopoly for one
or more larger companies. This process began in 2006 when the
FDA decided to remove marketed unapproved drugs (pdf).
The reasoning is that these drugs weren't ever technically "approved" by the FDA. While the FDA has been around for about a century, the business of having the FDA first approve drugs before they could go on the market came about closer to fifty years ago, and a bunch of "unapproved drugs" that were in common usage before that never got approved. The FDA is targeting many of those, even if they have a long history in the marketplace. Conveniently, of course, there always seems to be a pharma company with a monopolized substitute ready.
In 2006 the first "new" monopoly that was created by this FDA process was for the
malaria drug quinine sulfate. This left
only Mutual Pharmaceutical Company to manufacture quinine in the
US (pdf). While malaria is not a disease that affects many people in the US, it
is big business worldwide. Malaria causes 300 to 500 million
infections and over 1 million deaths each year. Treating this disease with
quinine used to cost pennies a day. In fact, the British turned this
treatment into a cocktail, the gin and tonic (quinine water).
Another drug removed was the antihistamine carbinoxamine,
which was created prior to needing FDA approval, in the early 1950s. It was
approved by the FDA in a slightly modified form in 2006. It is
now sold exclusively by Mikart, Inc and Pamlab, LLC with no future competition
because the FDA has banned all 120 other
versions of carbinoxamine. You can imagine just how much that must increase the profits for Mikart and Pamlab on carbinoxamine, though that seems to come at the expense of consumers.
It's
really nice being granted a government monopoly.
As for the drugs now being banned in this latest purge, you can argue that it's not really 500
drugs, because many are different combinations of the same 50 to 100 drugs.
To be sold, these disapproved drugs will require drug trials and
certification -- a massive and expensive process. Under current law, after
successful completion of FDA trials these drugs will be granted approval. But
in every case these trials are almost certainly not necessary. And, "coincidentally" in almost every case, there is a chemically similar
patented version ready to go. This is a pure money grab: replacing old
tried and true drugs, with monopoly priced prescription drugs. It just
requires removing competing drugs from the market to increase profits.
And with that, I'm off to go have a gin and tonic, while it's still legal...

Re:
So a simple question for you AC. If anonymity is bad why do we not know your name?
Re: Re:
Simple question if anonymity is so bad, why didn't you ask his name?
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
What he does is run a file locker, it is as simple as that. For a thousand USD and people to spread the news anyone could out do Kim Dotcom and the pirate bay. To do this is simple. Onion routing, distributed search, and a simple file listing. All of it available on GitHub or Sourceforge.
Re: Look...
OMG ... a disney flick reference on techno site ... well done.
Re: Re: Maybe it's because found other ways:
He reminds me of the CO2 is good for plants crowd on all the clean energy sites. Where what they are saying is a distraction, and sidesteps the larger issue.
And you are correct, he has no intellectual consistency whatsoever.
(untitled comment)
What has happened to the newspapers is the artificially high advertising rates have been removed. Not by stealing content, but by more targeted ads.
If you had a choice to spend $1,000 targeting people who are looking for what you are selling, or $1,000 on the shotgun approach that the newspapers provide, which would you choose?
(untitled comment)
What has happened to the newspapers is the artificially high advertising rates have been removed. Not by stealing content, but by more targeted ads.
If you had a choice to spend $1,000 targeting people who are looking for what you are selling, or $1,000 on the shotgun approach that the newspapers provide, which would you choose?
Re:
Here is one for you. Create a chrome app for Gmail that encrypts your email and do it as open source. Nothing in the world can be done at that point. Back door gets put in ... branch, rinse, lather, repeat.
If Google uses chrome to grab your private keys, spy on your emails as you write them, or puts in hooks to insert code on your machine, end of all trust in one very large publicly traded company.
Re: Re:
Most phones are now wifi enabled, and who doesn't have a home wifi connection now?
Re: Re: Weenies both sides: promoting and worry over TOY gun.
Pretty much everything when it first comes out is prone to breakdowns. What you have is a first generation 3D printed gun. The technology and materials used will get better over the next few years. When it does the guns produced will rival commercially available weapons.
Re:
What I find amusing is, you can disguise a 3D printed gun any way you want. You just need to put filler around all the parts, in any shape you want. It will turn the TSA's security theater into a comedy.
Double Barrel Bunny, Semi Auto Simian (monkey gun), Denture Derringer, ....
Re: YOUR only interest in "the blind" is as wedge against copyright.
"who paid for and created the intellectual property in the first place"
Let me get this straight. The book publishers created the works themselves.
Re: We the People?
Yes, right next to the Report Petitioner as STUPID! button.
Re: "the technology is coming one way or the other"?
just because something is possible doesn't mean that society must allow it
I agree we should ban all cameras and recording devices.
Oh wait ... Movies, TV, and Music use those devices.
Watching the watchers.
I do not think the politicians of the world realize how bad this could get for them. Everything they do recorded all times.
That really isn't a problem, if they aren't doing anything wrong then they shouldn't fear being recorded. I can not remember which politician said that ....
(untitled comment)
urging the White House to ban the devices until "limitations on public surveillance" can be put in place.
I wonder if this limitation on public surveillance will apply to the government also?
Re: Re:
Politicians do not take them seriously either. They only deal with them to take their money ...
Re:
He should ask you to do a favorites of the week. It would be such great fun to read an irrational rant that has no basis in reality.
(untitled comment)
Why deliver should the cable companies deliver it online? Why not just set up an antenna for each user, and deliver it via the standard cable box? Problem solved.
Re: Re: Pro press is has been?
Eureka = read it
sorry about that, Dragon speak homonyms and misunderstandings.