
US drugmaker raises price of vitamins by more than 800% - marban
https://www.ft.com/content/477521fa-dc34-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
======
bob_theslob646
If you want to read the article. Plug this article into google translate.
Otherwise you need a subscription from the FT

[https://www.rbc.ru/society/10/12/2017/5a2d310f9a794763beb123...](https://www.rbc.ru/society/10/12/2017/5a2d310f9a794763beb12377)

For non-subscribers, hear you go.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

> American drug manufacturer Avondale Pharmaceuticals "raised the price of
> vitamins" Niacor "by 809%, to $ 295 per package," writes the Financial Times
> . This is the only medicine containing niacin (vitamin B3), which can be
> bought by prescription.

Last month, one package of vitamins per 100 tablets cost $ 32.46. The medicine
containing niacin can be bought in online stores for $ 5, but it is not
certified by the US Health Department - the Office of Sanitary Supervision for
Food and Drug Administration.

 _" Avondale took advantage of the strategy of businessman Martin Shkrely:the
company bought the rights to the medicine from Upsher Smith, the American unit
of Japanese Sawai Pharmaceutical, being the only producer of the drug, and
sharply increased the price."_

How many times must this happen before the government gets involved?

~~~
chinathrow
Congress is involved - many congressmen and women are walthy enterpreneurs.
Not a single one of those would love to cut into their business friends
margins, I guess.

------
tzs
Why would one need a prescription form of niacin as opposed to the niacin that
is avilable in most common over the counter multivitamins? For example, I take
two Flintstone Completes each day, which provides 150% of the RDA of niacin.

Is this only meant for people who have some condition that requires a much
larger than normal dose?

As far as buying from those online sources that are $5 for 100 tablets but are
not FDA certified, niacin is also available from many of the supplement makers
that sell in brick and mortar stores, like Rite Aid, CVS, Walmart, etc. Those
brands cost more than the cheapest online-only brands, but might be more
reliable, and can also be found online fairly cheap. Nature's Bounty brand
niacin supplement, for example, is available via Amazon at $24 for 240 500 mg
tablets (2000% RDA).

It should be noted that there are at least four different forms of niacin
supplements avilable.

• nicotinic acid

• nicotinic acid combined with agents to slow its release

• nicotinamide

• inositol hexanicotinate

I _think_ the Niacor is the first form. The Nature's Bounty supplements are
the fourth form.

Here's an article that explains how the forms differ biologically:
[https://www.crnusa.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/1...](https://www.crnusa.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/13-CRNVMS3-NIACIN.pdf)

------
ghthor
Can't I still buy niacin that isn't "Niacor" for the same low-ish price as a
non-perscription vitamin?

~~~
Turing_Machine
Yes, of course you can.

------
ryanmerket
Is it possible to import vitamins?

~~~
akkat
The article (at least bob_theslob646 unpaywalled version) says that you can
buy one kind online for $5 for 100 tablets. However it is not FDA approved so
it is riskier.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Riskier" how?

------
hu3
paywalled

------
mtgx
This is what you get when the U.S. government gives more and more monopoly
power to Big Pharma (through patents and other means), restricts generics, and
bans imports.

[https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-
system...](https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-system-to-
keep-drugs-expensive)

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160823124857.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160823124857.htm)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552619](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552619)

~~~
foolrush
This is what happens when your government is weak and has been infiltrated
with lobbyists that represent the very companies they should be protecting you
from.

FIFY.

~~~
Turing_Machine
No, this is what happens when the government is too strong.

To expand a bit, what is going to prevent your new "stronger" government from
getting captured by the very same lobbyists, except now they'll have even more
power to distort and manipulate the market?

In this specific case, the fundamental problem appears to be that only one
company has jumped through the FDA hoops (which can cost billions) to sell
"prescription" niacin. How is piling even more regulation on top of that going
to make the problem go away?

~~~
foolrush
Right. So what exactly do you think happens when you take the referee out of a
UFC match?

The core idea of governance is not the issue, which is somewhat buried beneath
the idea that "government is too large" hints at.

Ultimately, the problem is cultural, ethical, and contextual. In this case,
later era capitalist "market drives everything". Everything is a market.
Everything a transaction. Including how to sway politicians.

As a counterpoint, in Canada our government has regulated against[1] these
sorts of issues. We aren't an ideal by a long shot[2][3], but we sure as hell
value it when our government leans on corporate entities. I believe the same
happened in the EU with regards to cellular roaming?

[1] [http://pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/home](http://pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/home)

[2] Unironically it was a conservative "free market" government that landed us
in this pickle.

[3] [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-must-and-
can-...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-must-and-can-take-
control-of-drug-prices/article34999078/)

~~~
Turing_Machine
> Right. So what exactly do you think happens when you take the referee out of
> a UFC match?"

There's no longer any "referee" to bribe? The fans get to vote on the winner
in a free market?

> Everything is a market. Everything a transaction. Including how to sway
> politicians.

The less power politicians have, the smaller the return on buying them. And
vice versa.

> We aren't an ideal by a long shot[2][3], but we sure as hell value it when
> our government leans on corporate entities.

There is essentially zero drug development in Canada. Have you ever wondered
why that might be? Do you think it might be a problem (for Canada) if the same
policies were applied in the U.S.?

~~~
foolrush
> There's no longer any "referee" to bribe? The fans get to vote on the winner
> in a free market?

Bzzt.

People end up dead.

In the case of Big Pharma, it is a fitting analogy.

> There is essentially zero drug development in Canada. Have you ever wondered
> why that might be? Do you think it might be a problem (for Canada) if the
> same policies were applied in the U.S.?

So you are suggesting that Canada doesn't participate in drug research? Or are
you suggesting that government monitored pricing prevents Martin Shkreli types
from making mega purchasing rights to drugs they had nothing to do with to
inflate the pricing and profit so they can spend two million dollars on
important Wu-Tang (?) album research?

Not sure which sort of statement you are hinting at.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> So you are suggesting that Canada doesn't participate in drug research?

I'm suggesting that the type of regulation you seem to favor stifles drug
research, yes. If the entire world adopted your policies, there simply
wouldn't be any new drugs.

> Martin Shkreli types

The only reason the "Martin Shkreli types" are able to do what they do is that
government regulations make it difficult or economically impossible for
competitors to enter the marketplace, even with drugs for which the patent has
long expired.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Let me just get this straight because I really want to make sure I understand
your point. The act of the government defending the people it represents
stifles the creation of new drugs. Am I missing something?

If the above is what you meant to say then what is so bad about these drugs
that getting them into the market is detrimental to the population? Drug
companies will always make drugs. To say they won't is patently false, most of
their research is paid for through the government grant system anyways, the
trials on the other hand can be expensive, bu they already conduct their shady
trials in poor countries and only bring them to developed countries when they
have the best chance to succeed. I'm not really sure what a percentage cap on
profits would prevent especially since most of the complaints are against
existing drugs becoming more expensive. Few people complain when cutting edge
drugs and therapies are expensive, everyone understands progress is expensive.
No one understands a well established drug suddenly becoming 800% more
expensive for what only seems like profit motive. Greed is not acceptable when
it comes to human life for most developed countries.

