Mylan CEO on EpiPens: The system rewards higher prices

a reply to: seasonal

We have strict controls of drug prices in Canada since most are covered by Medicare or fully covered by your insurance.

Most employers, even McDonalds for example offer medical benefits where they pay 95% of the cost or sometimes prescriptions only cost 5$ up to a certain point and then are free.

The for profit drug system exists here most certainly, but it's not nearly as predatory.

And that's because insurance companies/Federal Government refuse to be bullied into higher prices by drug manufacturers since they are footing the bill.

~Tenth

Lookie here... Martin Shkreli defends this price gouging...

Let's hope that Mylan's CEO faces a similar federal indictment...

a reply to: jimmyx

Disagree, with your opinion in term limits. I want plumbers, teacher or a garbageman in congress. They have no "relationships" and being there for such a short time, it would be hard to make any. The only relationship they would have is to their constituents.

Ya lobbying sucks. Corporations are people, really, really wealthy people, unless it is keeping up with the cost of living since 1979. No money for employees, but big bucks for the lobby.

originally posted by: jhn7537

originally posted by: jimmyx
the CEO was on CNBC this morning, and the host told her that the entire EPIPEN costs about 4 dollars to manufacture...5 years ago it sold for 60 dollars, and in the following years climbed about 100 dollars a year to 608 dollars this year....they can't stop themselves from being so greedy, even to the point that the government will step in and regulate....and then BIG PHARMA will bitch and moan about regulations hurting their business, and of course they will blame government overreach.....F them.

They are essentially forcing our hand to regulate their whole industry.. Either less patent protection for more competition or regulation.. has to be one or the other.

you're right...and there are still thoughtful and smart congressmen on each side of the aisle, that want to change the lobbying laws, there just isn't enough of them.....imagine if you were a businessman and you had to, BY LAW, fire and hire employees every 2 years....your business would fail...this is why I'm against mandatory term limits for congress, you get rid of the sharp, sane, and thoughtful ones, along with the nuts from both sides. old adage, but true..."throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

a reply to: jimmyx

The reason why i want term limits, is because we have too many long standing relationships between our politicians and the lobbying powers off "K-Street".. I understand that term limits leads to inexperience, but honestly, I'll take that over the blatant corruption we have in DC. This corruption is literally bleeding this country dry.. Maybe the term limits for the house/senate doesn't have to be extreme like the President (two terms), but maybe 3-4 terms wouldn't be the worst of ideas.

She admits openly that the list price was never intended to be sold at retail cost but subsidized by insurance benefits. Now we have high deductible plans which shows the public the real cost and she is frustrated? Then to make matters worse she admits Americans pay higher cost because we subsidize the world's drug cost. And that's a good thing?! Seriously our ruling class sounds more each day like Marie Antoinette. Poor CEO is just as upset as the parents of children because her rigged system is being exposed.

Seems the Clinton foundation has ties....
Link

"Records available on the website of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation reveal Mylan, the company that manufactures the EpiPen, has donated up to $250,000."

a reply to: jimmyx

The problem with no term limits is our representatives use it as a life long career. Politics should only be a temporary position. There are numerous representatives that are well over retirement age. Don't kid yourself, the outrageous salaries, pensions, benefits, and perks keep them from walking away from their political office. When members of congress have years in congress they use their seniority to squelch new ideas by young members who don't want to continue with the same old way of doing business. They don't want new members to rock the boat.

If they got paid the average salary of most Americans, received no comfortable pensions, and had limited health insurance, they wouldn't be making a career out of a political office. If they did, they would relate more to struggling families and pass legislation that would help citizens! Instead they ignore or block legislation for a livable minimum wage, push to cut Social Security, Medicare. and ignore our failing healthcare system, just to name a few.

Congress has had many chances to vote against lobbying, term limits, campaign finance reform, a reduction in their salaries and benefits yet they fail to do so. Who in this country can vote themselves raises and decide what benefits and pensions they receive???

A lot of them don't even read the bills they pass and many don't even show up to vote on bills! If they spent half the time they spend on getting re-elected and meeting with corporate interests, maybe they could do the job they were elected to do!

Jerry McNerney should start voicing his dissatisfaction before the American people and congress instead of behind closed doors! The day a congressman or congresswomen would speak out publically against the system is the day they'll have the American public on their side.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Who in this country can vote themselves raises and decide what benefits and pensions they receive???

With unions we used to have a little input into this, but they long gone. How are we doing now? Kinda off topic.

originally posted by: Ash614
She admits openly that the list price was never intended to be sold at retail cost but subsidized by insurance benefits. Now we have high deductible plans which shows the public the real cost and she is frustrated? Then to make matters worse she admits Americans pay higher cost because we subsidize the world's drug cost. And that's a good thing?! Seriously our ruling class sounds more each day like Marie Antoinette. Poor CEO is just as upset as the parents of children because her rigged system is being exposed.

For her it's a good thing because she likely thinks it will bring about socialized health care.

The problem is that while she is right, if we socialize, then the real costs of the drug are left up in the air. Who develops the drugs if no one is paying for them to be developed?

It is a problem that the we have both companies pricing into the pockets of insurance companies which are deeper than consumers can ever pay AND that we are very much subsidizing countries like Canada which is mentioned above. The reason that Canada can get a deep discount is that the governments force a below cost deal on the companies. They either sell in bulk below cost and shift that cost to those countries that don't much like how aspirin can get so expensive at the hospital here.

But if every country does this, then you are looking at companies who have significant amounts of product that are no longer profitable to make, so they won't make them. You have significant amounts of new drug exploration that is no longer made, etc.

Understand that I am in no way completely excusing this, but I am talking about the forces on the market very few consider that are government related that no one wants to point a finger at that have helped to screw things up so badly.

a reply to: ketsuko

This whole medical industry is a mess.

In this case are we to believe the costs associated with manufacturing this went up 400-500% in 6-10 years? This company doesn't develop drugs, they acquire rights and make/sell them. Is it true the drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on R and D ?

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, maybe drug development wouldn't be so costly if the Executive team didn't have the feeling of being entitled to millions every year in compensation.


The 6 executives at Mylan had a total combined income in 2015 of 67 million dollars.

That is DOWN from 2014, when the same 6 individuals had a total combined income of 85 million dollars.

Link to Morningstar's page on Mylan -

Morningstar.com Mylan page

I personally think "entitlement" is just as sickening, if not more so, when someone in the CEO class has it and wields it fiercely, as when someone from the masses has it and wields it.

What makes it more sickening to me is that people like these give Capitalism a bad name. They will come out and preach the need for "Capitalism" but that isn't what they are for. If they were for Capitalism they would be competing with each other and consumers would benefit. Instead, they collude with each other and consumers get the shaft. That's corruption. not Capitalism.

And before someone pulls this one out of the hat, no, I am not jealous of Ms. Bresch. I am quite happy with my simple life, my caring family, and my down-to-earth friends. If someone offered me her job (which I am quite capable of doing intellectually, if not spiritually) I would turn it down flat. Why? Because I would want to, I don't know, research and develop drugs with that money? But obviously the 'system' is not set up for that, and I would probably find myself "suicided" in short order.

And yes, I would like to walk up to Ms. Bresch, shake her hand, and say "Thank You" for taking $1200/yr out of my family's disposable income. That's $100.00/month we could be using for dance lessons, piano lessons, and a meal out every now and then. You know, $100.00 more a month that people in my neighborhood could have, and go spend, locally.

When the economy crashes due to widespread lack of disposable income, I wonder what Ms. Bresch and her ilk will blame then?

a reply to: CantStandIt

Well it cost almost 50,000 a day to have those 6 executives leading Mylan. Right or wrong it is the world we live in.

Remember you can order the Epi from Canada for 112$ each.

It is difficult as a free market advocate when this stuff happens. I feel the pain as well as QVAR(standard daily use long term asthma inhaler) cost $200 a month for me. It is $10 in most of europe and free in the UK.

Just like in defense the US workers subidize the western world by working more but getting less back in taxes.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

This whole medical industry is a mess.

In this case are we to believe the costs associated with manufacturing this went up 400-500% in 6-10 years? This company doesn't develop drugs, they acquire rights and make/sell them. Is it true the drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on R and D ?

I don't know about other companies, but where my husband works it is a budget rule that a fixed percentage (and not a small one) of each year's profits must go back to R&D exclusively. The rest is split out to all the rest. While I suppose it is theoretically possible that marketing gets more in the end, it would seriously short change other departments to do it.

But then again, where my husband works is just one company too.

a reply to: CantStandIt

Please read the post I made again.

I clearly state that what I wrote does not excuse all of what is going on.

But she is essentially correct in some of what she says too even if it does not completely excuse all of what is occurring in my opinion.

Some other things to consider are cost of materials and the increased regulatory on both them and the company itself.

However, none of that excuses all of what is happening there while it would explain some cost increase.

a reply to: ketsuko

If I understand, Maylan buys rights to meds and makes/sells them. I know it is easy to throw stones from the outside, but the CEO just released a 300$ off card/coupon.

What gives, usually 50% off a core product kills a company. Or is that the risk you take and must throw a bone to the public when your hand is caught in the cookie jar?

a reply to: ketsuko

No argument from me, I completely agree that the regulatory scheme in all its complexity adds to the pricing problem for the American consumer.

It's yet one more dysfunctional area of American life where the average American is caught in/under the mechanism.

And just like any dysfunctional relationship, one side (business, in this case) says "I agree this is a problem, you (Government) fix your side first. Then we'll discuss my side".

And at no point does the collateral damage even occur to either side.

If Ms. Bresch is unlucky enough to need to carry (or have a child that needs to carry) an EpiPen, she has my empathy for that. I am quite sure she isn't having to make the choice between medicine and dance lessons, or worse, however.

a reply to: CantStandIt
I would find it hard to believe government/corps would even recognize there is a problem. The corps feed the re-election machine and the government comes up with medicare plans with no caps on prices. Oh then there is the ACA (Obamacare) no controls but a few good ideas and another bone thrown to Big medical.

The medical industry must be laughing at how easy it is to charge the highest prices in the world and provide the least in terms of ranking with other industrialized nations.

In 2011, the U.S. spent $8,508 per capita in health care expenditures, compared with $3,405 per capita in the U.K., which was the country with the highest ranked health care system overall.

www.cbsnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.cbsnews.com... m-ranks-lowest-in-international-survey/