Price of scorpion antivenom, north and south of the US border: 12,000% difference

[baseline bum]

Consider this.

What is the shelf life, and how soon does it have to be administered? If a hospital keeps 10 vials on hand at a time, has to replace it every two weeks, and gets one demand a year for it, what if the cost? If it goes through a link of suppliers, each has the same problem with shelf life. Then of course, each vial is probably tested changing adding to the original $100.

Now I'm not so worried about this issue, but before you all jump to conclusions, check such possibilities out.

In other words, Mexicans are too stupid to not grab scorpions while smart Americans see the big stinger on the tail and know to back away. Hence, the continuous demand south of the border. But WC, if the Mexicans are so stupid to not mess with scorpions, do you think your shooting at them at the border will stop them from coming then? What do you hope to accomplish besides fulfilling your sociopathic bloodlust?

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, Mexicans are too stupid to not grab scorpions while smart Americans see the big stinger on the tail and know to back away. Hence, the continuous demand south of the border. But WC, if the Mexicans are so stupid to not mess with scorpions, do you think your shooting at them at the border will stop them from coming then? What do you hope to accomplish besides fulfilling your sociopathic bloodlust?

Baseline again, attacking me instead of adding value to the thread.

What a ing troll.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny that you keep putting down my job, but I'd make you the of the most junior engineer that works for me (assuming your were even qualified for that job).

Bluster is cute and all but it does not mitigated that you are much less qualified to comment on health care than a RN.

A RN could be considered an expert witness. You? Well youre a liar with a mailer and personal anecdotes.

[scott]

Consider this.

What is the shelf life, and how soon does it have to be administered? If a hospital keeps 10 vials on hand at a time, has to replace it every two weeks, and gets one demand a year for it, what if the cost? If it goes through a link of suppliers, each has the same problem with shelf life. Then of course, each vial is probably tested changing adding to the original $100.

Now I'm not so worried about this issue, but before you all jump to conclusions, check such possibilities out.

Also, what is the acceptance rate? If only 1 in 10 is accepted for US standards, that $100 vial is now $1,000 plus testing, manpower, and profit.

So in other words, exactly what I said.

Thanks for participating. You get a ribbon.

[coyotes_geek]

So no one wants to offer up the obvious answer that hospitals are jacking up the price on this stuff in an attempt to recover some $$$ for the stuff they're having to give away for free?

[Wild Cobra]

So in other words, exactly what I said.

Thanks for participating. You get a ribbon.

Yes, we actually agree on something. Now I don't know that it is the reason, and hospitals do have high markups, but there does have to be some logistical reason to support most the markup.

Thanks, but I'll pass on the ribbon.

[Wild Cobra]

So no one wants to offer up the obvious answer that hospitals are jacking up the price on this stuff in an attempt to recover some $$$ for the stuff they're having to give away for free?

That's what they do on everything already. But not that much.

[ElNono]

More detail here:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Basically, they think the price charged is "fair" because "the drug works"

[coyotes_geek]

Rare Disease Therapeutics sells the drug for $3,500 per dose to Accredo Health Care, a Memphis, Tenn.-based specialty pharmaceutical company that distributes the drugs to Arizona hospitals.

Several Arizona hospitals said they are charged about $3,780 per dose of Anascorp. Hospitals then add their own markup to cover extra costs such as patients who don't pay their full bills.

Ellis said his company established the price for the drug with the expectation that it would sell only 300 to 400 doses each year in desert regions with scorpion populations: Arizona, New Mexico and the Las Vegas area.

The FDA has granted Rare Disease Therapeutics the exclusive right to sell the antivenom in the United States for seven years. Other drug companies may pe ion the FDA to sell the drug after that seven-year period. However, because the market for scorpion antivenom is so limited, it's uncertain whether any generic company would seek to compete with Rare Disease Therapeutics.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...#ixzz1duUn0kc2

Looks like economy of scale is the driver here. 400 doses a year X 7 years of exclusive rights only gives 2,800 opportunities for the U.S. company to recover whatever costs they incurred for funding clinical trials, buying the rights to manufacture the drug from the mexican company, overhead, marketing, etc....

[ElNono]

More like trying to milk the cow while the exclusive rights are there. That drug has been available in Mexico for quite a few years.

Based on its expenses, Ellis said he believes his company charges a fair price that patients and insurance companies ultimately will be willing to pay because the drug is effective.

[ElNono]

This is interesting too:

Several Arizona hospitals said they are charged about $3,780 per dose of Anascorp. Hospitals then add their own markup to cover extra costs such as patients who don't pay their full bills.

[ElNono]

So you're going from $4K to $12K in markup from the Hospital alone...

[Agloco]

I'm sure if you have a severe scorpion venom allergy, its more than a big whoop.

lol

smh, smh

[SnakeBoy]

Scorpion stings ain't no big thing. Been hit several times.

I've been stung more times than I can count, by the Texas Bark Scorpion. The Arizona bark scorpion is much more venomous.

It took 5 years of study for them to get FDA approval for something with a very small market in the US so it's understandable that the drug would cost more here than in Mexico. I think 12,000% more sounds excessive but without knowing the details of their costs and exactly how small the market is it may be justified.

[greyforest]

Scorpion stings ain't no big thing. Been hit several times.

Thanks for your useless anecdote about a subject you clearly know jack about.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/168230-overview

The estimated annual number of scorpion stings is 1.2 million leading to 3250 deaths (0.27%). For every person killed by a poisonous snake, 10 are killed by a poisonous scorpion. In Mexico, 1000 deaths from scorpion stings occur per year. In the United States, only 4 deaths in 11 years have occurred as a result of scorpion stings.

[Wild Cobra]

More detail here:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Basically, they think the price charged is "fair" because "the drug works"

Thanks. That article explains it well. I disagree with your take on it though.

But when a therapeutic medication is developed for a small number of people - so-called "orphan drugs" for scorpion stings - costs can skyrocket. Drug companies market orphan drugs to a limited population, but they still must pay research, development and regulatory costs.

Although Rare Disease Therapeutics did not pay for research and discovery of the drug already used in Mexico, it did fund the clinical trials needed to approve the drug for sale in the United States.

That's not cheap.

The company established the drug's price based on several factors, including its own costs and expected revenue from the drug, Rare Disease Therapeutics President Milton Ellis said.

Several Arizona hospitals said they are charged about $3,780 per dose of Anascorp. Hospitals then add their own markup to cover extra costs such as patients who don't pay their full bills.

Ellis said his company established the price for the drug with the expectation that it would sell only 300 to 400 doses each year in desert regions with scorpion populations.

take the expenses involved and expected revenue, it is understandable why the costs can be so high.

Maybe you want to get rid of mandatory trial testing?

[boutons_deux]

"mandatory trial testing"

drug testing is done by/paid for the drug mfrs who suppress negative results, and overhype any (lucky) positive results. Proof is the many $10Bs BigPharma has paid in fines, penalties, damages for maiming and killing victims.

$12K/dose is typical BigPharma ripoff pricing, a huge factor in Human-Americans being drained of their wealth by health care costs, that politicians refuse to address. Politicians would rather deny care to the sick rather than force down the costs of care.

[Wild Cobra]

$12K/dose is typical BigPharma ripoff pricing, a huge factor in Human-Americans being drained of their wealth by health care costs, that politicians refuse to address. Politicians would rather deny care to the sick rather than force down the costs of care.

If they charged a proper profit, they could only give it to those who could afford it.

I don't like the way things are done either, but at least the poor get treated, and those who can pay, get screwed.

Would you rather the price be 1/4 what it is, and those who cannot afford it die?

[boutons_deux]

"If they charged a proper profit, they could only give it to those who could afford it."

if they made 15% profit, it would be much more affordable.

"the poor get treated"

no, they don't. That's why US has the highest infant mortality of all industrial countries, why poor people are sicker and die younger than non-poor. iow, the Banksters' Great Jobs Depression is also a public health disaster.

[101A]

Rare Disease Therapeutics hired a lobbying firm in 2009: HPS Group (Formerly Steven Grossman) - who (unless there is another one) is now treasurer of Mass. Trying to find out how much HPS was paid on behalf of RDT - I'm betting they got pretty good return on their investment, whatever it was.

Is anyone surprised that we see an (obviously) ridiculously overpriced drug on the market, and that the company selling it has lobbyists is Washington? THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM.

[101A]

Also, it is very convenient for politicians to use the insurance companies as bogeymen (watched Bernie Sanders do it this morning on CSPAN, in fact). If we HAD single payor - then it would become apparent that the actual COST of services, and not the mechanism by which those services are paid for is the problem with healthcare COSTS in this country (duh). Granting the right to make obscene profits is a power Congress doesn't want to give up. As long as insurance companies are in the mix, you can always blame them for the prices being too high - and deflect scrutiny from what goes on specifically with big Pharma lobbyists in Washington.

[boutons_deux]

"THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM."

sure it is, capitalism is selling the tiest possible product for the highest possible price.