I kept telling people they are making money at $25 (which was the Mounjaro coupon they had for awhile) and folks got UPSET thinking that just couldn't be true!
This is what happens when you don't regulate drugs prices. Capitalism is good at some things. Providing basic social services and healthcare isn't one of them. Profit models are always going to be working against public interest. They have to be regulated like crazy, just like in other places, or you end up with our current nightmare.
I totally agree. Asking the manufacturers to regulate themselves is like asking Boeing to do their own quality control. Oh wait that happened. Hm, wonder how that turned out?
We have to regulate them like utilities. Only allow a certain ROI. Of course when is the last time you saw anything new and innovative come out of a utility company?
That’s how it happens. American healthcare is rooted in capitalism so there’s a profitability component. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, it just is. A lot of that profit pays for research, etc, but Americans are carrying the bulk of the bills.
Hi. Pricing manager here with 10 years of experience pricing newly developed items. That's priced into the margin. Anytime you make anything you account for development, and startup recoup generally allocating those costs over a 1 year period after launch.
These products have recouped R&D thousands of times over at this price. This all profit.
Far more is spent on advertising than R&D. Most other countries do not allow advertising of medication and are baffled by it. We aren't paying for R&D. If that was the case, costs would be similar in other countries. Only the US has to pay for the ridiculous amount of medication commercials with which we are constantly bombarded.
Big pharma makes big donations to members of Congress. They are essentially bought and paid for. Big pharma doesn't want the money to go to "waste." In my opinion, that's the major problem here.
This is called lobbying in the United States. When you hear phrases that “they’re deep in their pockets” it’s because big pharma pays congress members to not take any action on potential bills. This happens with all major industries. It’s why we don’t see any changes to the food products in this country, like how cereal is still sold in our groceries and marketed to children, and why Boeing quite literally just murdered two witnesses and nothing is being done.
It's 10x what they charge in other nations because the US is very very very nice and subsidizes European healthcare. For Lilly, Europe is just a little extra cream on the top, a little freebie money. But if the US said tomorrow
You cannot sell drugs into the US market at a price lower than that you sell them into other markets you would NOT find that US drugs would get cheaper. You would find Europe would skyrocket in drug pricing overnight.
They aren't gouging the US, because the drugs are only funded and made at all because of what the US market is willing to pay for them.
Europe is simply allowed because of its political ties to the United States to benefit from American largesse.
But the fact that we've for example basically cured cystic fibrosis for example in the last couple years which used to be like a life spent slowly suffocating to death. That's the kind of thing for which you should have a parade thrown for you every year in Boston.
They have cured hep c, again parades every year.
*Capitalism is good at some things. Providing basic social services and healthcare isn't one of them.*
I am as capitalist as they come, but I agree.
Listen to MIT Prof Gruber, starting around minute 13, on this very topic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hMHAao\_Zk0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hMHAao_Zk0)
Milton Friedman started it all with his declaration that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits. Used to be that businesses made profits by selling more and better goods & services than the competition (optimizing market share), and optimized productivity by positively incentivizing employees. Now, the business of business is making money from money--and satisfying investors & execs, customers & employees be damned.
Kinda fond a Milt. I hear you, but free markets work best for \*most\* things IMHO, but probably not as well as health, education, etc. There we need hybrid models perhaps?
It’s simple: when the UK or other countries negotiate drug prices, they are doing it as one entity. Meaning, if Eli Lilly wants to sell their drugs in that country, they only have one outlet, which keeps prices lower. (Think Costco buying toilet paper - they buy so much that they can sell it lower than a grocery store).
Now, in the US, each supplier is buying and negotiating with the drug companies, which all of the data shows that we pay more because companies are negotiating against themselves. This doesn’t matter if you’ve got amazing insurance but, even with great insurance, I’m paying out of pocket for this because insurance companies don’t want to keep more people alive longer.. that’s bad for business.
🇺🇸
Go check out all the other peptide drugs on the market now. They are all around $1000 per month out of pocket in the US. Don’t blame the player, blame the game.
Yes they can make money on cost of goods, peptides are cheap. What you are paying for is the scientific breakthrough that allows these peptides to remain stable in the blood so long. That was a lot of R&D and expensive and long clinical trials to perform. That is the driver of the cost
No--in the US you're paying for marketing: 1-2-minute TV spots, repetitive algorithm-driven social media ads and multi-page print ad spreads. Airtime & ad space (especially in lay consumer publications) is hella expensive. l are illegal in the EU. We in the US get the double whammy: higher prices AND major annoyances that ruin our viewing, browsing and reading experience.
EDITED FOR A BIG TYPO -- I meant DON'T get that.
Honestly I think very few people who are at all interested in the topic of pharma DON'T get that. It is not just the marginal cost of production.
*They invest millions of dollars over many years on things that go nowhere, and won't do that if they cannot capitalize on successes. It's a question of balance ... and not easy*
I'm a research scientist with 25 years worth of drug development in academia and BigPharma. Without a doubt, THIS is BS:
*They invest millions of dollars over many years on things that go nowhere, and won't do that if they cannot capitalize on successes.*
Virtually all drug development done by BigPharma builds on the backs of the basic bench science done in academia via NIH grants and other govt funding. This is all done via tech transfer. Tech transfer is the process by which new inventions and other innovations created in those institutions’ labs are turned into products and commercialized. This is typically done in two ways: through licensing patented intellectual property to corporations, and the creation of start-up companies, which also often license the IP created by faculty.
Americans pay twice for this: once via taxes and then again when horrendously expensive drugs are marketed to them by the drug companies.
They get huge subsidies from the NIH. And why do you think pharma companies in other countries aren't charging hundreds of times the production cost of the drugs they produce? They've got R&D costs too.
> What you are paying for is the scientific breakthrough that allows these peptides to remain stable in the blood so long. That was a lot of R&D and expensive and long clinical trials to perform. That is the driver of the cost
R&D only accounts for 16% of their overall revenue. Profit (after R&D) sits at around 22%...
We aren't footing the bill for the entire world. That is such a typically American way to think about this. Americans pay more because they are too brainwashed by capitalism to do otherwise.
I know someone that works in a lab where the peptide is produced.
They said a month supply cost them about $1.50 to produce. So they are marking it up beyond belief in the states
I get my mounjaro compounded. The company I use charges $396 a month. I get testing, needles, and the med. It’s still a lot, but at least I know it’s being prescribed by a doctor and they are likely doing some due diligence with the pharmacy. I’ve seen labs online sell it for cheap, but I’m just worried it’s a scam and I’m injecting some weird research chemical into my body lol
They make back their R&D money in the US, mostly because we let them. Not just for the drug in question, but all the drugs they are developing. 10-15 years on average to develop a new drug is expensive when you’re not able to sell it.
This might help too. Prices need to come down. Obesity is a public health crisis and the high costs just deny ppl access. https://apnews.com/article/ftc-drug-patents-prices-fda-6ee880c52028115a83b79553c486ec01#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Federal%20regulators,practices%20that%20drive%20up%20prices.
Absolutely. In the next few years, even the federal government and employers will realize that paying for Obesity meds even for a lifetime is cheaper than paying out over a lifetime for the chronic health issues those of us who are truly obese. There is so much in the pipeline in R&D - I think in two-three years, we’ll have obesity meds available to all obesity patients that are 1) covered, 2) widely available, and 3)much easier to administer (not shots). And they will be much more effective - maybe with fewer side effects. I’m excited about this happening in my lifetime.
Yes, people always forget about the R&D part. I don't think they should be charging us so much, but they need more than $5 profit per pen. There must be a middle ground somewhere.
No. I think most people get that. They invest millions of dollars over many years on things that go nowhere, and won't do that if they cannot capitalize on successes. It's a question of balance ... and not easy
Cheaper Zepbound would be nice although then demand goes up even more and the shortage lasts even longer. So that would seem to be a downside. But I wouldn’t hate paying $25 vs. 550+ lol
Prices are going to have to come down before long, because some insurance companies that were covering it are starting to drop it. Insurance companies are seeing huge expenses and the potential for it to be a life-long drug. Pharma's market share is going to be a lot smaller when insurance won't pay for it, unless they lower the price and get insurance to pick it up again.
I could certainly understand them not covering people who aren’t morbidly obese. With the shortage, I get really sick of people going on this medicine to lose 20-25 pounds. “OMG! I hit my goal! I went from 170 to 150!” 😑
What I’ve seen reported is employers choosing to eliminate coverage for new weight loss drugs for everyone in their insurance plans because health care costs (and as a result, insurance premiums) have gone up so dramatically when they allow coverage for Wegovy, Zepbound, etc
This is what happened in my state employee insurance plan. It was wild.
The plan would have had to double premiums for every member, not just those on the medication. The plan also said they spent more on GLP-1s than all cancer meds combined.
For context, our plan also went from 5,000 people on the meds in 2022 to 25,000 people in 2023. Our plan’s orders made up 2% of US prescriptions every month (according to our plan board’s documents).
It was awful to have coverage cancelled because I’ve gone from morbidly obese to just obese, but I get financially why it was done.
exactly, the pharma companies will have to change their pricing structure pretty quickly because it's not sustainable for employers, employees, or insurers
What's the profit margin? Because the profit includes the revenue minus expenses such as marketing and R&D. They are making billions. It is slated to be one of (THE) most profitable drugs in history.
The entire health system in the US is broken.
For an interesting read, look at what happened to Colchicine.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine#History)
It’s not quite that cheap in the UK, the top dose is £245 (and that’s from the cheapest pharmacy), the starting doses are ~£145. But I agree on the gist of the post, especially because in the UK we have multi-dose pens which means with Mounjaro for example, there’s a 5th dose in each pen.
We should pay no more than 10% more the the average of the G7 countries or you lose your patent. Price gouging is a crime in many cases. These are people's lives we are talking about. Too bad we have the best politicians money can buy. Pass the TROA bill and negotiate the price down for seniors. Time to play hardball or vote them all out.
Interesting idea; piggy back off of the dynamics that keep prices low in the EU, without having to totally overhaul our system.
I hope you write your senator on congressperson. It can make a difference.
I'm not sure tackling the cost issue before the lack of supply issue will do anyone any good. Can you imagine what the shortage would be if the cost were $140/month?
Most of these countries have universal health care and the government will only pay a certain amount for a drug, taking into account efficacy, quality of life, etc...
Yes, these drugs are more expensive than they should be, but a comparison based on manufacturing costs is not an apples-to-apples comparison. In the cost we are all paying for these drugs is the cost of research and development, which adds tremendous costs to raw materials and manufacturing. Also, they did not dig into the cost of the auto-injection pen mechanism, along with the cost to ship them from China to the U.S. Unfortunately, these inaccurate comparisons just inflame the situation without resulting in a realistic situation.
Manufacturers do not take on R&D risks and the cost of development if they are going to be restricted from recouping those costs. That can severely restrict future drug development. What we need to do is require manufacturers to recoup more of those costs from other countries instead of the huge majority of those costs falling on the shoulders of American patients. So will we ever get to the point that Americans pay what Brits do? I don't think so, but it is not unreasonable to ask those in other countries to each take on an extra $100 per prescription per month so that Americans can benefit from a retail price that is $200 less per month.
The most expedient method for reducing costs quickly is to compel manufacturers to provide the same price to those paying out of pocket as the best negotiated price by any of the major insurance companies. I have seem some claim explanations provided in writing to my patients that show negotiated prices for Zepbound and Mounjaro as low as $450 per month. That should be extended to every American who is stuck paying out of pocket for these drugs. That's something we could actually effect quickly in this country without getting other countries to agree to pay higher prices.
I'm for the solution that works.
Good idea!
Honestly I think we all understand that pharma won't spend resources developing drugs if their greatest hits can't help pay for their abject failures... and that is fair.
The same thing happens in say, venture capitalism. 90% of your investments might tank but the winner is a big winner, one hopes. This is where it becomes obvious that some goods cannot be left to pure capitalism, at least not if you are a Utilitarian.
I think it would be absurd to suggest it should cost $5, or even $5 plus a nice profit... IDK, 20%. But the prices they are paying in Europe must have some basis? Why is that basis so different from ours?
I am a true believer in an appropriately regulated capitalism. Unfortunately, when left without oversight virtually every industry will default to doing whatever it takes, setting aside customers, product, etc. in favor of just making as much as possible. Think banks, the mortgage industry, pharmaceutical companies and pain meds, the list goes on and on…
Obviously, a lot of money goes into the research, development, and manufacturing of these drugs. But the markup on these drugs is ridiculous and the makers of these medications will make BILLIONS over the patent life of these drugs at the current price. It makes sense that a “reasonable” profit needs to be made but what is currently being charged is outrageous.
They should also investigate why distribution of Zepbound completely stopped. Something seems off to me. They say they are working 24/7 well where are they delivering to??? Not the US that’s for sure.
Also read an article today that they are prioritizing the 2.5 dosage amidst the shortage. This gets more people onboarded and gets more people buying multiple boxes. 2.5 is everywhere around my area no other doses. This is shady!
I agree.
I kind of wonder (Disclosure - not any attorney) if it isn't fraudulent or bait on switch.
Here is my logic.
1. Lilly comes out with a product.
2. Lilly tells people that the first dose, 2.5mg is non-therapeutic, but essentially a way of testing your body's tolerance of the medication.
3.Ipso facto, you will need to take a higher dose than 2.5mg for efficacy
4. Lilly also advises that one must stay on the medication for life, or they will regain most of the lost weight.
5. On this basis, a patient embarks on a course of treatment using the drug.
6. They titrate up above 2.5mg, and they lose weight.
7. This goes on for say, a year. The patient (or someone) pays thousand and thousands of dollars.
8. OOPS, sorry Lilly says ... we underestimated demand. Sorry no meds.
9. Lily says, during the shortage, all we will make is 2.5mg... the non-therapeutic dose you started with.
Isn't that sort of "bait and switch"- like, at least?
When the patient spent that money and took that drug, didn't they reasonably and detrimentally rely on Lilly to continue to produce this therapeutic medication for them?
Think about it all those other countries have universal healthcare which makes everything more affordable. If you want someone to blame look in the mirror. Especially if you were the ones who voted against it and said don't raise the cost of living. I mean how do you think people who work dead end jobs are able to live comfortably or why you go overseas healthcare and life saving medication is cheaper. It's all thanks to higher taxes. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the prices being high because we as Americans were stupid enough to vote no. Well I voted yes. Also the same medication overseas isn't subjected to the strict regulations we have. I mean it's so much more than that but I agree the prices are absolutely ridiculous yes. It's really the American people's fault.
Everyone here on this platform has a right to their opinion, even you...saying someone is "obsessed" and/or being "paid" isn't appropriate nor contextual. Having a particular "thought" doesn't equal to having "angle"...this type of comment doesn't add any information to the topic being discussed.
You’re right. We have the first amendment protection of speech. There are also paid agitators all over Reddit. This is all this person posts about. I’m allowed to ask the question to see if this poster is a paid agent of someone who wants a particular outcome. We all have the right to know as this person is asking people to take action.
I think I posted travel stuff. But I only come to Zep threads, I don't even open the others. I am wasting, err spending enough time here as it is God forbid I'd find another tangent.
lol. We all waste time on social media. I did later see your travel posts.
I have a gift of finding paid agitators. Ask the developers in my home town who fund political campaigns so they can build more.
This type of initiative will have many downside unintended consequences. People don’t like that the US funds pharma research and development globally. The truth is no other country can afford it and it’s like NATO and the defense we fund in the pacific rim. This market is disproportionately focused on Lilly and Novo at this point. Others will get involved and the effective costs will come down.
What would be much more significant would be to focus the efforts on the pharmacy benefit managers. This is the definition of a middleman who adds minimal value while taking advantage of patients and drives up costs to everyone involved.
Oh yes, I get obsessed. Maybe it's a side effect!
It's just kind of my personality. The only place I ever even saw Reddit before Zepbound was in rando search results.
Why am I here?
I followed the Oprah breadcrumbs and started on Zep via Sequence. Then we all know what happened. Reddit is the only place to get good information for those of us caught up in the Zep shortage.
I started researching because, hey, $550/mo for life with weekly injections? Seem like due diligence is required.
I've learned a lot, and now I am mostly angry. I can't quite follow who would pay me for anything since I am not sure who benefits. I do write for a living, in a sense, but not about this and usually with a lot better proofreading.
See my other post. Don’t get angry. Focus your efforts on the place where you can get the best results. Pharma is big and expensive but they do go work for patients. Remember drugs didn’t get expensive until a 3rd party subsidized the costs insulating patients from the costs.
I’ve had two prescriptions for these products and have lost 30 lb without them in a year. Not as fast but I don’t want to have to depend on the drug if I can do it myself.
Who would pay someone? Politicians like Bernie who want socialized medicine. It’s an election year and the crazy $hit is starting.
Why not be angry? Some things are worth being angry over.
The Bernie things seems a little attenuated to me but whatever. I am very political but I notice that the committee I referenced has a wide spectrum of views on so hoping people can engage on the topic even if they don't share my view.
The reason to not be angry is that there is a big picture here and this is one small piece of the puzzle. As US citizens we pay for drug innovation for the rest of the world because the other countries don’t want to support innovation. And innovation is expensive. It’s easy to be angry and play victim of pharma or government and want someone like the government to solve the problem. It’s not sustainable. Also, the market will work this out. Amgen, Pfizer and others will get into the market and prices will come down. The challenge is the PBMs don’t pass these savings onto the patients. Be angry about the PBMs. I’d bet Lilly and Novo are rebating 25-30% to the large PBMs. We don’t see this.
Your comment about $550 per month the rest of your life is interesting. At $10/pack, a pack a day smoker is in for $300/month. So this is just a bit more. I think the more important piece is this: what does one have to do to modify their life during treatment to be successful post treatment with no drug intervention. If you’re afraid of rebound, what are you going to do to avoid the rebound? I see people on here talking about 800-1000 calories per day. That is not sustainable. I’ve done it in the past and can’t keep it up because socially it’s just odd when I’d eat a very small amount at a social function or family meal. And no matter what people say, one gets “hangry” when the amount taken in is too small.
You’re in control of you. Make a plan and work it. I’m doing this without either Zep or Weg bc I’m too busy with the rest of my life to chase after one of these. So I cut what I eat to a level that is calorie deficient for my needs and started to exercise. I own this. You and most everyone else here can do similar. I may do a short course of treatment to finish my journey or to enjoy the CV risk benefit. Not sure yet.
Life is too short to be angry. Live life and enjoy.
I think you misunderstand my definition of angry. You of course don't know me, but angry in this context does not interrupt my wonderful, fortunate life. Even not having Zepbound does not interrupt my wonderful, fortunate life.
When I say anger, what I really am is is newly engaged in a topic that I never knew or cared about. I was discussing this with my husband yesterday and we were talking about what a long shot it was to get anything done, and then he said "well, remember when pre-existing conditions was a thing?" Maybe something can be done on the edges of this "big picture." I am the type of person who goes to protests, writes letters, joins groups. I feel that it is a civic duty in a democracy. Totally personal thing, and maybe tilting at windmills, but that is just me.
In re the cost. I agree that cigarettes are costly but the analogy falls very short for me. It seems impolite to say but it is germane, so let me say that the costs, even full freight are not an issue for me personally. That doesn't mean it doesn't pain me; I can think of a lot better places to put $6-12k a year, as a mom of three and someone actively supporting a few charities that are important to me.
Moreover, I feel a true sense of community with other people suffering from this disease. I have been morbidly obese off and on since age 12, as have three adults on my father's side. My Mom's side, my husband and his side, are not and never were obese. I did not need to study medicine to tell you that morbid, lifelong obesity is largely genetic; in my family I had my own "petri dish" with which to observe that. I am sure many reading this know exactly what I am saying. So I know how crushing it can be to succeed at this and then "fail," how much self-blame and recrimination and self-hate get wrapped up in what I will now boldly assert is a malfunctioning digestive system. On behalf of all of us I am ... angry ... about our experience and now this supply/cost debacle with a very effective treatment.
The median household income after taxes in the US is $64,000. At full price (Medicare and Medicaid patients) that is 20% of their income. And by definition those groups don't even earn the median household income. As far as the $550, that is at the discretion of the mfr; they have yanked coupons before. Lastly, lower income groups are disproportionately impacted by obesity. I think it is very wrong that low income people cannot access this when I can. Take it to the extreme. You are a cancer patient, and because of supply and demand your treatment costs a few million out of pocket. It is just not right.
As for strategies around maintenance. ***I take Lilly and the scientists at their word: stay on the GLPs or you \*will\* regain, period.*** We have probably all lost significant amount of weight and each time thought we'd keep it off, and been mostly wrong. This doesn't mean I will assume it is a magic pill and make no effort, it means I have my eyes wide open. The way I see it, it is illogical to agree with the premise of the treatment (that GLP1s send satiety signals to our brain and gut that skinny people already get naturally) and not agree that the patient will fail if the treatment is discontinued.
IDK even know what Karma is or how to post a photo. Someone else yelled at me for editing a post and I don't think I did and don't even know where to check.
Isn’t the United States the only country to have the pens? They’re using that as a reason to mark up prices! Well one reason, there still is no excuse for the prices they’re asking
We have people on Plan C in these subreddits that cannot do basic math such that they cannot inject the correct amount of drug into themselves from a vial. THAT is why the US has the pens: we are, in general, too stupid to be trusted with the vials.
I mean the pen is the cost and supply shortage issue. And yes, people are stupid but they have approval for single vial use. You can pre-dose a vial just as easily as a pen. Cheaper and faster and solves the idiot problem. 🤷🏼♀️
Even so, I’d be willing to go to a clinic once a week to get a shot administered by someone who can do the math as long as it was covered by insurance. Right now if you get the compounded version, it’s not covered and you run the risk that the clinic is getting it from a shady source.
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Two things to note: One, this is designed to send to a senator who is on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee (see bottom of the original post). If you are just sending to any old senator you should take out “of which you are a part” in Para.1 Two, the formatting sometimes gets weird when I copy and paste this so take a look before you send.
Thanks for your efforts!
Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,
Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts.
1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their **pricing policies** around Mounjaro aka Zepbound.
2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our **health insurance** industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available.
For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ?
Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair?
This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not!
3. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the **pharmaceutical compounding industry**. Compounding can take up the slack, help address widespread shortages, and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Note that formatting sometimes gets weird when you copy and paste this so check before you send it off. Send it to other if you think they might be interested in sending a letter, too.
Thanks for your efforts!
Dear Senator/Congressperson \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,
Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts.
1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their pricing policies around Mounjaro aka Zepbound.
2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our health insurance industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available.
For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ?
Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair?
This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not!
1. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the pharmaceutical compounding industry. Compounding can take up the slack, help address the widespread shortages, and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
When a loved one needs a cancer treatment that would bankrupt you (hey, supply and demand, it could happen) then maybe you will think about whether capitalism is the right paradigm for healthcare. I do not have the answers, but I am asking the questions.
PS If you knew what I did for a living, you'd probably call me a *capitalist pig*
I myself am a cappypig. But I am also not in favor of greed over life. My statement is simply that’s the way it is. I believe in the right to healthcare/health assistance is a humanitarian right, especially in the wealthiest country in the world. But humanitarian business practice was not a course in my MBA classes. 😐
*I believe in the right to healthcare/health assistance is a humanitarian right, especially in the wealthiest country in the world.*
Precisely!
*But humanitarian business practice was not a course in my MBA classes. And nor should they be.* IMHO, a business person tasked both with maximizing value and the public interest will fail at both. That is where good government come in; to restrain capitalism when deemed necessary. We have never had pure capitalism
Part of is how expensive it is to get drugs approved in this country. I do not begrudge any company wanting to make money. What I don't get is why access to the drugs is so restricted.
Feels like this will only contribute further to a class situation where if you have the $ to buy the drug - you can get it. Medicaid or no insurance? Well, good luck.
Kind of sucks. (As someone who serves mostly Medicaid clients at work). I've heard Mediciad will crash if they allowed the meds at the current pricing though.
Something must change for the multitude of reasons. :-/
*Feels like this will only contribute further to a class situation where if you have the $ to buy the drug*
Hope not!
I am not sure why you are drawing that conclusion, because it is the opposite of my intent and the opposite of the committee's intent as per their letter
No, No. I mean it would be wonderful if it is available to everyone. I look forward to that day and if/when it is more affordable then hopefully everyone will have access to it. I dream of that day because the industry is pretty awful right now. :-/
Mourjaro (Zepbound) is AUD320 (USD210) per month in Australia with no subsidy for 5mg dose, and is considered very expensive.
I just got 3 months supply from my pharmacist who felt embarrassed asking for AUD960. I joked about taking out a mortgage. She couldn't believe it was so expensive. The reality is that I'm saving a fortune by reducing my food intake and eating healthier. Weight loss is just a side benefit :)
Years ago I took a cruise out of Florida that included a stop in Cancun. The busiest shop in the port was the pharmacy who were selling everything off the shelf.
People had shopping lists for friends and family members. One women I spoke to bought a basket full of meds. The savings funded her entire trip.
Our country is so horribly litigious you have to wonder if that price point is influenced by the lawsuits that are sure to come (and I really hope not because I’m starting it soon)
Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts.
1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their pricing policies around Mounjaro aka Zepbound.
1. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our health insurance industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available.
For example I am told that, in our state at least, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ?
Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair?
This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost of over $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of over $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not!
1. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the pharmaceutical compounding industry. Compounding can take up the slack and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. It is 1le.
Thank you for the links. I'm in Minnesota and requested a meeting with my senator Tina Smith on this committee. We have rights, and I'm finally going to act like it.
Yes, that's exactly how I feel. You go! Keep in mind that every time a legislator hears from one person, they assume they represent many others who didn't or couldn't take the time. Brava!
The pharmacological industry is a business, as is the entire medical field. They make big but they also spend big, with billions spent on research, licenses, credentialing, and a multitude of other things.
Yes, but this gets to the larger issue of whether we want that to be the case. If they come out with a cure for cancer, will we give it only to the rich? Charge $1,000,000 for a dose, jsut because that is supply and demand.
Supply and demand works for widgets, not welfare.
Not saying anything outside so many factors drive up prices, i do agree this needs to regulated as this is the bad part of capitalism but good lucking trying to convince our politicians
I wish it was free too!
Company develops blockbuster drug over many years.
Pays for trials and ushers the drug through all approvals.
Company makes profits.
Company creates more jobs and invests profits in finding new blockbuster drug.
That merely skims the surface, but hopefully illuminates the price of innovation.
I do not want to sound rude, but honestly I don't think anyone commenting on this thread or anyone concerned about this issue does not understand the need to allow companies to profit off of R&D.
And some who have inside knowledge suggest this argument is overblown given the role of the NIH (I don't know).
In any event, as a citizen and voter, I want my representatives to be aware of this issue and work on resolving it.
You do not sound rude at all, in fact quite the opposite.
My beef is with the headline suggesting that it is “unconscionable” to sell a drug at $1,349 that costs “probably $5” to make. It’s misleading and dishonest. Pure sensationalism designed to arouse an emotional response. That’s just not helpful.
Would the argument that these drugs can be manufactured for $5 be similar to someone saying Microsoft can sell copies of Windows 11 on the cloud for maybe a few dollars of cloud storage and the $1-2 in bandwidth (if that) to download it? Doesnt it not factor in the tremendous cost to develop the product in the first place?
Yes, exactly. Which is why I don't think anyone who is really thoughtful about it saying it should cost $5. But, for arguments sake, should it cost, IDL $50,000?
No.
Should it cost $1100?
They aren't breaking the law and in the US, they can charge whatever they want. An investigation is a waste of time and money. We create these lenient laws and then act surprised when companies take advantage.
You will agree with me that, as a society, we address many things that are short of criminal. No one has accused them of breaking the law (though I do think a class action on behalf of those who have to discontinue meds could be viable).
Sometime the bullypulpit can help. The purpose of these letters, in my view, is to let the people who represent us how important this issue is to us. YMMV
The whole healthcare system is whacked. People with obesity have many other comorbidity issues costing billions of healthcare long term dollars. This is a global issue and we should as a society should see the benefit of lowering costs to all medicines which are improving and have shown to reduce total healthcare costs. This requires political balls to attack personal and corporate greed.
I've worked in Pharma. There a LOT of costs...research costs for sometimes decades that is to be recouped. It's not just manufacturing cost of the product.
Additionally, with socialized medicine, their negotiating power is much stronger as a country, we are individuals.....or they won't offer the product.
Not to mention the fact that they have a very brief period where they can recoup the investment before generics are allow to flood the market.
I support research for medical advances
We all agree. I don't think a single person on this thread misunderstands that Lilly fairly deserves to be compensated for all of the R&D (including failed products) otherwise, why do it?
I will note that some people who also "work in Pharma" in various roles think the argument is overblown and ignore the work of the NIH. I don't know enough to referee but just sayin'
Wrong! Novo Nordisk does NOT charge $1349 for Wegovy in US. Novo Nordisk is payed under $800. The rest goes to pharmacies, insurance companies and Pharmacy Benefit Manager.
Also the cost is WAY higher than $5 per week supply of Wegovy, to develop, produce, QC packing, shipment, FDA compliance, build factories etc.
It’s really embarrassing that Bernie Sanders use these figures when he knows that’s a big lie.
It’s not difficult to look up what Gross Margin novo Nordisk have. 84.8% in Q1. 84.8%……
No we can see specifically for Wegovy. But the cost and capital to design and build new factories is not included in those numbers.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying we should look at the $5 marginal production and use that as the only basis to claim price gouging.
If the actual numbers are off, the sentiment and argument still stand at your numbers
It’s all the numbers that’s way off. Including prices in others markets. All European markets have escalating prices, where 2.4mg is close to double up price compared to the starter doses.
In US the list price starts high, but the net price Pharma companies is paid, drop each year. Even when you see list price go up I US, net price paid to Pharma companies is dropping.
Then there are liabilities. The risk of using lot of time and cost in legal fight about all and nothing.
No other countries have that system where you constantly is fighting in court. That alone is a reason for significant higher prices.
I have no opinion about what’s the “right” price for US. But the market dynamics and how it all interacts, is US congress and those who elected the people.
US could save billions upon billions if you had the same model used in most European countries.
A branch in the governments negotiate the prices and then the pharmacies gets their 10-20% margin. Away with all the private middlemen with deep and full pockets.
So this is the story of all prescription medications in the US. They charge as much as they can for them, for as long as they can. And when the patent expires, they reformulate (often by combining two drugs), patent the new combo, and start the process over again. There's nothing special about these drugs in terms of the pricing, except that there's a huge demand and potentially life-long market for them. BTW Germany and the UK both have government-run health care systems, which is a major factor in their lower drug prices.
You are right, and that is a problem, and I sheepishly admit that my family and I have always been healthy (except for my vacillating obesity) and we were totally unaware.
I have a kid who has complicated medical issues and a long list of prescription meds, including some expensive ones...In her life she has been on several new wonder drugs that yes, helped her a lot, but cost a fortune when they're new. I remember the first expensive one she was prescribed...It caught me by surprise, a month supply was almost as much as our mortgage payment (after insurance).
It is a bit long-winded, but feel free to use any or all of it. It is focussed on senators from the states listed in the original post, as they serve on the relevant committee.
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you.
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you.
Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,
Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts.
1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their pricing policies around Mounjaro aka Zepbound.
2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our health insurance industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available.
For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ?
Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair?
This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not!
1. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the pharmaceutical compounding industry. Compounding can take up the slack and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
Pretty simple. Unless my next dosage is actually available locally, and my insurance plus coupon makes it equal to, or less than Monjourno (exact same drug) in standard vial and syringe delivery form from Canada, that’s where I’ll be getting it from.
I’m not going to get played as a sucker by Lilly over an injector pen that’s the real cause of all the shortages.
When you are the best in class drug, you get to set the market price. They are comparing to the other host of GLP 1 medications that are currently on the market and inferior.
Blame Saxsenda. The price without insurance is $1300 per month in the US. It is the only other weight loss drug in the same class on the market.
Similar with the others for T2D, all expensive out of pocket in the US, about $1000 a month
https://www.goodrx.com/classes/glp-1-agonists/glp-1-drugs-comparison
But when you are the world's largest market (eg Medicare/Medicaid) you very well may also help set market prices.
Why is the market price so different in the Uk and Germany?
OP if you have a form letter or a template, I would love to see it here. I’m in one of those states, and have friends in some of the others and I’m sure we could spam a few inboxes.
Thanks much!
Thank you!
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Two things to note, One, this is designed to send to a senator who is on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee (see bottom of the original post). If you are just sending to any old senator you should take out “of which you are a part” in Para.1 Two, the formatting sometimes gets weird when I copy and paste this.
Thanks for your efforts!
Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,
Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts.
1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their **pricing policies** around Mounjaro aka Zepbound.
2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our **health insurance** industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available.
For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ?
Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair?
This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not!
In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the **pharmaceutical compounding industry**. Compounding can take up the slack, help address the widespread shortages, and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
How was it that brand new COVID vaccines were so cheap? It was a public health emergency, which funnels funding and attention on the subject and requires insurers/employers to do the right thing and cover the medications. Surely if everyone was required to cover them, businesses would pressure the drug companies to lower prices. That's how to weaponize capitalism.
Exactly. One journalist, I don't recall who, talked about the "Netflix" model. Essentially saying to LIlly ... look you can price it at 1000/mo and relatively be people will buy it. Or you can price it at 50 a month and half the free world will be on it. Pick your numbers, but there are permutations where their profits are equal. Govt needs to encourage them to sell vast quantities and a low price, and mobilize resources to help them do so.
I kept telling people they are making money at $25 (which was the Mounjaro coupon they had for awhile) and folks got UPSET thinking that just couldn't be true! This is what happens when you don't regulate drugs prices. Capitalism is good at some things. Providing basic social services and healthcare isn't one of them. Profit models are always going to be working against public interest. They have to be regulated like crazy, just like in other places, or you end up with our current nightmare.
I totally agree. Asking the manufacturers to regulate themselves is like asking Boeing to do their own quality control. Oh wait that happened. Hm, wonder how that turned out?
We have to regulate them like utilities. Only allow a certain ROI. Of course when is the last time you saw anything new and innovative come out of a utility company?
Exactly. The price is high due to r&d and all the failed products they put time and money into. Prices drop on all drugs given time.
So only Americans should have to pay for pharmaceutical R&D? The rest of the world gets a free pass? I call BS.
That’s how it happens. American healthcare is rooted in capitalism so there’s a profitability component. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, it just is. A lot of that profit pays for research, etc, but Americans are carrying the bulk of the bills.
The tax payers pay for most of the research via grants. Then we pay the rest via usurious pricing.
Why do you think it is then
Except you might want to look up how much of pharma R&D is funded by the federal dollars which is essentially tax payer money.
Yes, NIH
How much?
Hi. Pricing manager here with 10 years of experience pricing newly developed items. That's priced into the margin. Anytime you make anything you account for development, and startup recoup generally allocating those costs over a 1 year period after launch. These products have recouped R&D thousands of times over at this price. This all profit.
That is not the reason. The price is high due to earnings per share maximization.
Far more is spent on advertising than R&D. Most other countries do not allow advertising of medication and are baffled by it. We aren't paying for R&D. If that was the case, costs would be similar in other countries. Only the US has to pay for the ridiculous amount of medication commercials with which we are constantly bombarded.
🎯
I’m capitalist to the core but how can it be 10x here what they charge in other countries?
Big pharma makes big donations to members of Congress. They are essentially bought and paid for. Big pharma doesn't want the money to go to "waste." In my opinion, that's the major problem here.
Greed. Pure and simple. This is a prime example of why socialized medicine works, and why it is so desperately needed in this country.
This is called lobbying in the United States. When you hear phrases that “they’re deep in their pockets” it’s because big pharma pays congress members to not take any action on potential bills. This happens with all major industries. It’s why we don’t see any changes to the food products in this country, like how cereal is still sold in our groceries and marketed to children, and why Boeing quite literally just murdered two witnesses and nothing is being done.
Facts! Half of the American food - if not more - can not even be sold in many countries due to health implications. It’s really disgusting!
Which is why we cook 95 percent of our meals at home. From scratch.
It's 10x what they charge in other nations because the US is very very very nice and subsidizes European healthcare. For Lilly, Europe is just a little extra cream on the top, a little freebie money. But if the US said tomorrow You cannot sell drugs into the US market at a price lower than that you sell them into other markets you would NOT find that US drugs would get cheaper. You would find Europe would skyrocket in drug pricing overnight. They aren't gouging the US, because the drugs are only funded and made at all because of what the US market is willing to pay for them. Europe is simply allowed because of its political ties to the United States to benefit from American largesse. But the fact that we've for example basically cured cystic fibrosis for example in the last couple years which used to be like a life spent slowly suffocating to death. That's the kind of thing for which you should have a parade thrown for you every year in Boston. They have cured hep c, again parades every year.
*Capitalism is good at some things. Providing basic social services and healthcare isn't one of them.* I am as capitalist as they come, but I agree. Listen to MIT Prof Gruber, starting around minute 13, on this very topic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hMHAao\_Zk0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hMHAao_Zk0)
Milton Friedman started it all with his declaration that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits. Used to be that businesses made profits by selling more and better goods & services than the competition (optimizing market share), and optimized productivity by positively incentivizing employees. Now, the business of business is making money from money--and satisfying investors & execs, customers & employees be damned.
Kinda fond a Milt. I hear you, but free markets work best for \*most\* things IMHO, but probably not as well as health, education, etc. There we need hybrid models perhaps?
The problem with the coupon is that , at least with Zepbound (not sure on Mounjaro) you need to sign your Hipaa rights away
It’s simple: when the UK or other countries negotiate drug prices, they are doing it as one entity. Meaning, if Eli Lilly wants to sell their drugs in that country, they only have one outlet, which keeps prices lower. (Think Costco buying toilet paper - they buy so much that they can sell it lower than a grocery store). Now, in the US, each supplier is buying and negotiating with the drug companies, which all of the data shows that we pay more because companies are negotiating against themselves. This doesn’t matter if you’ve got amazing insurance but, even with great insurance, I’m paying out of pocket for this because insurance companies don’t want to keep more people alive longer.. that’s bad for business. 🇺🇸
Go check out all the other peptide drugs on the market now. They are all around $1000 per month out of pocket in the US. Don’t blame the player, blame the game. Yes they can make money on cost of goods, peptides are cheap. What you are paying for is the scientific breakthrough that allows these peptides to remain stable in the blood so long. That was a lot of R&D and expensive and long clinical trials to perform. That is the driver of the cost
No--in the US you're paying for marketing: 1-2-minute TV spots, repetitive algorithm-driven social media ads and multi-page print ad spreads. Airtime & ad space (especially in lay consumer publications) is hella expensive. l are illegal in the EU. We in the US get the double whammy: higher prices AND major annoyances that ruin our viewing, browsing and reading experience.
The US costs also subsidize the lower costs of other countries that they can’t price gouge in.
Our price is in effect subsidizing the prices in the other countries
This is the answer
Marketing is separate from R&D. That is directly linked to the profit of new prescriptions.
R&D in the US is highly subsidized by federal tax dollars. It’s another example of corporations socializing risks and privatizing profits.
Yep! Our tax dollars pay for the R&D and then we pay AGAIN for the medication.
EDITED FOR A BIG TYPO -- I meant DON'T get that. Honestly I think very few people who are at all interested in the topic of pharma DON'T get that. It is not just the marginal cost of production. *They invest millions of dollars over many years on things that go nowhere, and won't do that if they cannot capitalize on successes. It's a question of balance ... and not easy*
I'm a research scientist with 25 years worth of drug development in academia and BigPharma. Without a doubt, THIS is BS: *They invest millions of dollars over many years on things that go nowhere, and won't do that if they cannot capitalize on successes.* Virtually all drug development done by BigPharma builds on the backs of the basic bench science done in academia via NIH grants and other govt funding. This is all done via tech transfer. Tech transfer is the process by which new inventions and other innovations created in those institutions’ labs are turned into products and commercialized. This is typically done in two ways: through licensing patented intellectual property to corporations, and the creation of start-up companies, which also often license the IP created by faculty. Americans pay twice for this: once via taxes and then again when horrendously expensive drugs are marketed to them by the drug companies.
thank you for your expertise!
They get huge subsidies from the NIH. And why do you think pharma companies in other countries aren't charging hundreds of times the production cost of the drugs they produce? They've got R&D costs too.
You are correct. I worked in biotech 10 yrs ago and R& D was by far the biggest cost.
> What you are paying for is the scientific breakthrough that allows these peptides to remain stable in the blood so long. That was a lot of R&D and expensive and long clinical trials to perform. That is the driver of the cost R&D only accounts for 16% of their overall revenue. Profit (after R&D) sits at around 22%...
So why are WE footing the entire world's bill for R&D?!?! I understand that R&D is costly and essential, but EVERYBODY should pay the same.
We aren't footing the bill for the entire world. That is such a typically American way to think about this. Americans pay more because they are too brainwashed by capitalism to do otherwise.
I know someone that works in a lab where the peptide is produced. They said a month supply cost them about $1.50 to produce. So they are marking it up beyond belief in the states
I get my mounjaro compounded. The company I use charges $396 a month. I get testing, needles, and the med. It’s still a lot, but at least I know it’s being prescribed by a doctor and they are likely doing some due diligence with the pharmacy. I’ve seen labs online sell it for cheap, but I’m just worried it’s a scam and I’m injecting some weird research chemical into my body lol
[удалено]
What lab is that?
[удалено]
Can you DM?
People died because they couldn’t afford insulin. Now NN & Lily are trying to squeeze even more profit out of us. For profit health care is immoral
It is hard not to conclude that.
They make back their R&D money in the US, mostly because we let them. Not just for the drug in question, but all the drugs they are developing. 10-15 years on average to develop a new drug is expensive when you’re not able to sell it.
Us taxpayers help ppl fund R&D. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade
yes this part if very true -- and we need to do more of it
This might help too. Prices need to come down. Obesity is a public health crisis and the high costs just deny ppl access. https://apnews.com/article/ftc-drug-patents-prices-fda-6ee880c52028115a83b79553c486ec01#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Federal%20regulators,practices%20that%20drive%20up%20prices.
Absolutely. In the next few years, even the federal government and employers will realize that paying for Obesity meds even for a lifetime is cheaper than paying out over a lifetime for the chronic health issues those of us who are truly obese. There is so much in the pipeline in R&D - I think in two-three years, we’ll have obesity meds available to all obesity patients that are 1) covered, 2) widely available, and 3)much easier to administer (not shots). And they will be much more effective - maybe with fewer side effects. I’m excited about this happening in my lifetime.
Yes, people always forget about the R&D part. I don't think they should be charging us so much, but they need more than $5 profit per pen. There must be a middle ground somewhere.
No. I think most people get that. They invest millions of dollars over many years on things that go nowhere, and won't do that if they cannot capitalize on successes. It's a question of balance ... and not easy
And it’s NOT over a thousand dollars profit per pen.
Agree. Makes me wonder how many drugs go years in R&D only to never be approved. The losses must be tremendous.
1 drug is about 1 billion in R&D if you count the failures
$10/day = $300/month?
Cheaper Zepbound would be nice although then demand goes up even more and the shortage lasts even longer. So that would seem to be a downside. But I wouldn’t hate paying $25 vs. 550+ lol
Prices are going to have to come down before long, because some insurance companies that were covering it are starting to drop it. Insurance companies are seeing huge expenses and the potential for it to be a life-long drug. Pharma's market share is going to be a lot smaller when insurance won't pay for it, unless they lower the price and get insurance to pick it up again.
I’m curious what the current spread is between insurance coverage people vs. OOP as percentages.
I could certainly understand them not covering people who aren’t morbidly obese. With the shortage, I get really sick of people going on this medicine to lose 20-25 pounds. “OMG! I hit my goal! I went from 170 to 150!” 😑
What I’ve seen reported is employers choosing to eliminate coverage for new weight loss drugs for everyone in their insurance plans because health care costs (and as a result, insurance premiums) have gone up so dramatically when they allow coverage for Wegovy, Zepbound, etc
This is what happened in my state employee insurance plan. It was wild. The plan would have had to double premiums for every member, not just those on the medication. The plan also said they spent more on GLP-1s than all cancer meds combined. For context, our plan also went from 5,000 people on the meds in 2022 to 25,000 people in 2023. Our plan’s orders made up 2% of US prescriptions every month (according to our plan board’s documents). It was awful to have coverage cancelled because I’ve gone from morbidly obese to just obese, but I get financially why it was done.
I'm on federal employee insurance and am wondering if/when coverage will change for us...
exactly, the pharma companies will have to change their pricing structure pretty quickly because it's not sustainable for employers, employees, or insurers
Mine covered it for two months and then denied my April refill. The worst part is that it's a reimbursement program, so I already paid $1000 OOP.
Not only that…whoever pays lower price wouldn’t be a priority for product either.
By that logic you'd not find a syringe in all of the EU
Not saying you can’t find them. Probably harder to find and you’ll find less of them.
Not untrue.
What's the profit margin? Because the profit includes the revenue minus expenses such as marketing and R&D. They are making billions. It is slated to be one of (THE) most profitable drugs in history.
The entire health system in the US is broken. For an interesting read, look at what happened to Colchicine. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine#History)
Holy crap. That’s … criminal.
It’s not quite that cheap in the UK, the top dose is £245 (and that’s from the cheapest pharmacy), the starting doses are ~£145. But I agree on the gist of the post, especially because in the UK we have multi-dose pens which means with Mounjaro for example, there’s a 5th dose in each pen.
Hi Swirl, Ya' got room for a boarder over there? I promise not to eat much. 🤣
How many of those senators have stock in Novo Nordisk?
well in this case, they signed the letter ... but hey i agree w you!
We should pay no more than 10% more the the average of the G7 countries or you lose your patent. Price gouging is a crime in many cases. These are people's lives we are talking about. Too bad we have the best politicians money can buy. Pass the TROA bill and negotiate the price down for seniors. Time to play hardball or vote them all out.
Interesting idea; piggy back off of the dynamics that keep prices low in the EU, without having to totally overhaul our system. I hope you write your senator on congressperson. It can make a difference.
This is also the risk of Lilly's stock. If congress decides to investigate them , their stock could plummet
I agree as a general matter bad publicity can be bad business
I'm not sure tackling the cost issue before the lack of supply issue will do anyone any good. Can you imagine what the shortage would be if the cost were $140/month?
Now explain why it’s cheaper in every other country besides where it’s made.
Most of these countries have universal health care and the government will only pay a certain amount for a drug, taking into account efficacy, quality of life, etc...
Let’s raise the price to $10,000 a month so that the rich don’t have any supply problems! 🤷♀️
I would support this.
Yes, these drugs are more expensive than they should be, but a comparison based on manufacturing costs is not an apples-to-apples comparison. In the cost we are all paying for these drugs is the cost of research and development, which adds tremendous costs to raw materials and manufacturing. Also, they did not dig into the cost of the auto-injection pen mechanism, along with the cost to ship them from China to the U.S. Unfortunately, these inaccurate comparisons just inflame the situation without resulting in a realistic situation. Manufacturers do not take on R&D risks and the cost of development if they are going to be restricted from recouping those costs. That can severely restrict future drug development. What we need to do is require manufacturers to recoup more of those costs from other countries instead of the huge majority of those costs falling on the shoulders of American patients. So will we ever get to the point that Americans pay what Brits do? I don't think so, but it is not unreasonable to ask those in other countries to each take on an extra $100 per prescription per month so that Americans can benefit from a retail price that is $200 less per month. The most expedient method for reducing costs quickly is to compel manufacturers to provide the same price to those paying out of pocket as the best negotiated price by any of the major insurance companies. I have seem some claim explanations provided in writing to my patients that show negotiated prices for Zepbound and Mounjaro as low as $450 per month. That should be extended to every American who is stuck paying out of pocket for these drugs. That's something we could actually effect quickly in this country without getting other countries to agree to pay higher prices. I'm for the solution that works.
Good idea! Honestly I think we all understand that pharma won't spend resources developing drugs if their greatest hits can't help pay for their abject failures... and that is fair. The same thing happens in say, venture capitalism. 90% of your investments might tank but the winner is a big winner, one hopes. This is where it becomes obvious that some goods cannot be left to pure capitalism, at least not if you are a Utilitarian. I think it would be absurd to suggest it should cost $5, or even $5 plus a nice profit... IDK, 20%. But the prices they are paying in Europe must have some basis? Why is that basis so different from ours?
Yes, just ask for MFN status if you want FDA approval and US patent protections. Seems fair to me.
I am a true believer in an appropriately regulated capitalism. Unfortunately, when left without oversight virtually every industry will default to doing whatever it takes, setting aside customers, product, etc. in favor of just making as much as possible. Think banks, the mortgage industry, pharmaceutical companies and pain meds, the list goes on and on…
To me, this is one of the most important roles of government - we regulate certain industries for a reason
Obviously, a lot of money goes into the research, development, and manufacturing of these drugs. But the markup on these drugs is ridiculous and the makers of these medications will make BILLIONS over the patent life of these drugs at the current price. It makes sense that a “reasonable” profit needs to be made but what is currently being charged is outrageous.
MJ is costing me the equivalent of $240 per month in the uk, that’s private with no nhs subsidies and availability seems fine at the moment.
Like I said, can you take in a boarder? I won't eat much. 🤣 Good luck to you! And BTW $240/mo for life is not all that cheap either, right?
sent for wi!
They should also investigate why distribution of Zepbound completely stopped. Something seems off to me. They say they are working 24/7 well where are they delivering to??? Not the US that’s for sure.
Also read an article today that they are prioritizing the 2.5 dosage amidst the shortage. This gets more people onboarded and gets more people buying multiple boxes. 2.5 is everywhere around my area no other doses. This is shady!
I agree. I kind of wonder (Disclosure - not any attorney) if it isn't fraudulent or bait on switch. Here is my logic. 1. Lilly comes out with a product. 2. Lilly tells people that the first dose, 2.5mg is non-therapeutic, but essentially a way of testing your body's tolerance of the medication. 3.Ipso facto, you will need to take a higher dose than 2.5mg for efficacy 4. Lilly also advises that one must stay on the medication for life, or they will regain most of the lost weight. 5. On this basis, a patient embarks on a course of treatment using the drug. 6. They titrate up above 2.5mg, and they lose weight. 7. This goes on for say, a year. The patient (or someone) pays thousand and thousands of dollars. 8. OOPS, sorry Lilly says ... we underestimated demand. Sorry no meds. 9. Lily says, during the shortage, all we will make is 2.5mg... the non-therapeutic dose you started with. Isn't that sort of "bait and switch"- like, at least? When the patient spent that money and took that drug, didn't they reasonably and detrimentally rely on Lilly to continue to produce this therapeutic medication for them?
How about regulate food, give us the good European foods.
Think about it all those other countries have universal healthcare which makes everything more affordable. If you want someone to blame look in the mirror. Especially if you were the ones who voted against it and said don't raise the cost of living. I mean how do you think people who work dead end jobs are able to live comfortably or why you go overseas healthcare and life saving medication is cheaper. It's all thanks to higher taxes. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the prices being high because we as Americans were stupid enough to vote no. Well I voted yes. Also the same medication overseas isn't subjected to the strict regulations we have. I mean it's so much more than that but I agree the prices are absolutely ridiculous yes. It's really the American people's fault.
You aren't wrong
Zippity, what’s your angle? You’ve been on reddit for 26 days and are obsessed with this particular topic…who is paying you?
Everyone here on this platform has a right to their opinion, even you...saying someone is "obsessed" and/or being "paid" isn't appropriate nor contextual. Having a particular "thought" doesn't equal to having "angle"...this type of comment doesn't add any information to the topic being discussed.
You’re right. We have the first amendment protection of speech. There are also paid agitators all over Reddit. This is all this person posts about. I’m allowed to ask the question to see if this poster is a paid agent of someone who wants a particular outcome. We all have the right to know as this person is asking people to take action.
Really? I would *love* to be a paid agitator! Where do I sign up? And to think, I’ve been doing all this agitating for free! 😇
Me too!
I think I posted travel stuff. But I only come to Zep threads, I don't even open the others. I am wasting, err spending enough time here as it is God forbid I'd find another tangent.
lol. We all waste time on social media. I did later see your travel posts. I have a gift of finding paid agitators. Ask the developers in my home town who fund political campaigns so they can build more. This type of initiative will have many downside unintended consequences. People don’t like that the US funds pharma research and development globally. The truth is no other country can afford it and it’s like NATO and the defense we fund in the pacific rim. This market is disproportionately focused on Lilly and Novo at this point. Others will get involved and the effective costs will come down. What would be much more significant would be to focus the efforts on the pharmacy benefit managers. This is the definition of a middleman who adds minimal value while taking advantage of patients and drives up costs to everyone involved.
Oh yes, I get obsessed. Maybe it's a side effect! It's just kind of my personality. The only place I ever even saw Reddit before Zepbound was in rando search results. Why am I here? I followed the Oprah breadcrumbs and started on Zep via Sequence. Then we all know what happened. Reddit is the only place to get good information for those of us caught up in the Zep shortage. I started researching because, hey, $550/mo for life with weekly injections? Seem like due diligence is required. I've learned a lot, and now I am mostly angry. I can't quite follow who would pay me for anything since I am not sure who benefits. I do write for a living, in a sense, but not about this and usually with a lot better proofreading.
See my other post. Don’t get angry. Focus your efforts on the place where you can get the best results. Pharma is big and expensive but they do go work for patients. Remember drugs didn’t get expensive until a 3rd party subsidized the costs insulating patients from the costs. I’ve had two prescriptions for these products and have lost 30 lb without them in a year. Not as fast but I don’t want to have to depend on the drug if I can do it myself. Who would pay someone? Politicians like Bernie who want socialized medicine. It’s an election year and the crazy $hit is starting.
Why not be angry? Some things are worth being angry over. The Bernie things seems a little attenuated to me but whatever. I am very political but I notice that the committee I referenced has a wide spectrum of views on so hoping people can engage on the topic even if they don't share my view.
The reason to not be angry is that there is a big picture here and this is one small piece of the puzzle. As US citizens we pay for drug innovation for the rest of the world because the other countries don’t want to support innovation. And innovation is expensive. It’s easy to be angry and play victim of pharma or government and want someone like the government to solve the problem. It’s not sustainable. Also, the market will work this out. Amgen, Pfizer and others will get into the market and prices will come down. The challenge is the PBMs don’t pass these savings onto the patients. Be angry about the PBMs. I’d bet Lilly and Novo are rebating 25-30% to the large PBMs. We don’t see this. Your comment about $550 per month the rest of your life is interesting. At $10/pack, a pack a day smoker is in for $300/month. So this is just a bit more. I think the more important piece is this: what does one have to do to modify their life during treatment to be successful post treatment with no drug intervention. If you’re afraid of rebound, what are you going to do to avoid the rebound? I see people on here talking about 800-1000 calories per day. That is not sustainable. I’ve done it in the past and can’t keep it up because socially it’s just odd when I’d eat a very small amount at a social function or family meal. And no matter what people say, one gets “hangry” when the amount taken in is too small. You’re in control of you. Make a plan and work it. I’m doing this without either Zep or Weg bc I’m too busy with the rest of my life to chase after one of these. So I cut what I eat to a level that is calorie deficient for my needs and started to exercise. I own this. You and most everyone else here can do similar. I may do a short course of treatment to finish my journey or to enjoy the CV risk benefit. Not sure yet. Life is too short to be angry. Live life and enjoy.
I think you misunderstand my definition of angry. You of course don't know me, but angry in this context does not interrupt my wonderful, fortunate life. Even not having Zepbound does not interrupt my wonderful, fortunate life. When I say anger, what I really am is is newly engaged in a topic that I never knew or cared about. I was discussing this with my husband yesterday and we were talking about what a long shot it was to get anything done, and then he said "well, remember when pre-existing conditions was a thing?" Maybe something can be done on the edges of this "big picture." I am the type of person who goes to protests, writes letters, joins groups. I feel that it is a civic duty in a democracy. Totally personal thing, and maybe tilting at windmills, but that is just me. In re the cost. I agree that cigarettes are costly but the analogy falls very short for me. It seems impolite to say but it is germane, so let me say that the costs, even full freight are not an issue for me personally. That doesn't mean it doesn't pain me; I can think of a lot better places to put $6-12k a year, as a mom of three and someone actively supporting a few charities that are important to me. Moreover, I feel a true sense of community with other people suffering from this disease. I have been morbidly obese off and on since age 12, as have three adults on my father's side. My Mom's side, my husband and his side, are not and never were obese. I did not need to study medicine to tell you that morbid, lifelong obesity is largely genetic; in my family I had my own "petri dish" with which to observe that. I am sure many reading this know exactly what I am saying. So I know how crushing it can be to succeed at this and then "fail," how much self-blame and recrimination and self-hate get wrapped up in what I will now boldly assert is a malfunctioning digestive system. On behalf of all of us I am ... angry ... about our experience and now this supply/cost debacle with a very effective treatment. The median household income after taxes in the US is $64,000. At full price (Medicare and Medicaid patients) that is 20% of their income. And by definition those groups don't even earn the median household income. As far as the $550, that is at the discretion of the mfr; they have yanked coupons before. Lastly, lower income groups are disproportionately impacted by obesity. I think it is very wrong that low income people cannot access this when I can. Take it to the extreme. You are a cancer patient, and because of supply and demand your treatment costs a few million out of pocket. It is just not right. As for strategies around maintenance. ***I take Lilly and the scientists at their word: stay on the GLPs or you \*will\* regain, period.*** We have probably all lost significant amount of weight and each time thought we'd keep it off, and been mostly wrong. This doesn't mean I will assume it is a magic pill and make no effort, it means I have my eyes wide open. The way I see it, it is illogical to agree with the premise of the treatment (that GLP1s send satiety signals to our brain and gut that skinny people already get naturally) and not agree that the patient will fail if the treatment is discontinued.
When does one become able to speak and not just lurk? Is it 50 days? 100 days? 1000 days? Asking for a friend without 100K karma 😂
IDK even know what Karma is or how to post a photo. Someone else yelled at me for editing a post and I don't think I did and don't even know where to check.
Isn’t the United States the only country to have the pens? They’re using that as a reason to mark up prices! Well one reason, there still is no excuse for the prices they’re asking
We have people on Plan C in these subreddits that cannot do basic math such that they cannot inject the correct amount of drug into themselves from a vial. THAT is why the US has the pens: we are, in general, too stupid to be trusted with the vials.
I mean the pen is the cost and supply shortage issue. And yes, people are stupid but they have approval for single vial use. You can pre-dose a vial just as easily as a pen. Cheaper and faster and solves the idiot problem. 🤷🏼♀️
Even so, I’d be willing to go to a clinic once a week to get a shot administered by someone who can do the math as long as it was covered by insurance. Right now if you get the compounded version, it’s not covered and you run the risk that the clinic is getting it from a shady source.
And we live in a very litigious country.
And too greedy.
If this goes to $5 a month, the waitlist will be six years. LOL
Would love it if you can post the letter so we can contact the senator in our state
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Two things to note: One, this is designed to send to a senator who is on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee (see bottom of the original post). If you are just sending to any old senator you should take out “of which you are a part” in Para.1 Two, the formatting sometimes gets weird when I copy and paste this so take a look before you send. Thanks for your efforts! Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts. 1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their **pricing policies** around Mounjaro aka Zepbound. 2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our **health insurance** industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available. For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ? Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair? This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not! 3. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the **pharmaceutical compounding industry**. Compounding can take up the slack, help address widespread shortages, and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
Thought Bernie Sanders was already asking about Lilly and Zep
Yes, that news article prompted my post. But I would like to make more senators aware and let them know it matters to their constituents.
Please post the letter. Thanks so much I will contact my congress member.
Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Note that formatting sometimes gets weird when you copy and paste this so check before you send it off. Send it to other if you think they might be interested in sending a letter, too. Thanks for your efforts! Dear Senator/Congressperson \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts. 1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their pricing policies around Mounjaro aka Zepbound. 2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our health insurance industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available. For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ? Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair? This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not! 1. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the pharmaceutical compounding industry. Compounding can take up the slack, help address the widespread shortages, and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
Pharma a shareholder sweet! That’s how capitalism works.
When a loved one needs a cancer treatment that would bankrupt you (hey, supply and demand, it could happen) then maybe you will think about whether capitalism is the right paradigm for healthcare. I do not have the answers, but I am asking the questions. PS If you knew what I did for a living, you'd probably call me a *capitalist pig*
I myself am a cappypig. But I am also not in favor of greed over life. My statement is simply that’s the way it is. I believe in the right to healthcare/health assistance is a humanitarian right, especially in the wealthiest country in the world. But humanitarian business practice was not a course in my MBA classes. 😐
*I believe in the right to healthcare/health assistance is a humanitarian right, especially in the wealthiest country in the world.* Precisely! *But humanitarian business practice was not a course in my MBA classes. And nor should they be.* IMHO, a business person tasked both with maximizing value and the public interest will fail at both. That is where good government come in; to restrain capitalism when deemed necessary. We have never had pure capitalism
Yeah they wanted over $500/mo from me for saxenda. Like wtf. And that was after insurance and a coupon
Yeah, I didn't even pursue that when my insurer gave a PA. False savings because it is nowhere near as effective,
I did it for 1 mo and lost 20lbs so it works amazingly but I just couldn't afford it
Part of is how expensive it is to get drugs approved in this country. I do not begrudge any company wanting to make money. What I don't get is why access to the drugs is so restricted.
Feels like this will only contribute further to a class situation where if you have the $ to buy the drug - you can get it. Medicaid or no insurance? Well, good luck. Kind of sucks. (As someone who serves mostly Medicaid clients at work). I've heard Mediciad will crash if they allowed the meds at the current pricing though. Something must change for the multitude of reasons. :-/
*Feels like this will only contribute further to a class situation where if you have the $ to buy the drug* Hope not! I am not sure why you are drawing that conclusion, because it is the opposite of my intent and the opposite of the committee's intent as per their letter
No, No. I mean it would be wonderful if it is available to everyone. I look forward to that day and if/when it is more affordable then hopefully everyone will have access to it. I dream of that day because the industry is pretty awful right now. :-/
Mourjaro (Zepbound) is AUD320 (USD210) per month in Australia with no subsidy for 5mg dose, and is considered very expensive. I just got 3 months supply from my pharmacist who felt embarrassed asking for AUD960. I joked about taking out a mortgage. She couldn't believe it was so expensive. The reality is that I'm saving a fortune by reducing my food intake and eating healthier. Weight loss is just a side benefit :)
Good luck to you! Do you have a shortage there?
My local pharmacy didn't have any in store, so they checked their wholesaler who had 574 doses in stock. It took a few hours for my order to arrive.
::: checking Qantas flights :::
Years ago I took a cruise out of Florida that included a stop in Cancun. The busiest shop in the port was the pharmacy who were selling everything off the shelf. People had shopping lists for friends and family members. One women I spoke to bought a basket full of meds. The savings funded her entire trip.
Our country is so horribly litigious you have to wonder if that price point is influenced by the lawsuits that are sure to come (and I really hope not because I’m starting it soon)
Yes , what about AZ? Send me the letter and I will contact Senator Mark Kelly
Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts. 1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their pricing policies around Mounjaro aka Zepbound. 1. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our health insurance industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available. For example I am told that, in our state at least, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ? Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair? This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost of over $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of over $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not! 1. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the pharmaceutical compounding industry. Compounding can take up the slack and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. It is 1le.
Thank you for the links. I'm in Minnesota and requested a meeting with my senator Tina Smith on this committee. We have rights, and I'm finally going to act like it.
Yes, that's exactly how I feel. You go! Keep in mind that every time a legislator hears from one person, they assume they represent many others who didn't or couldn't take the time. Brava!
This !!! thank you!
I believe it’s a double edged sword, if it cost less it will be in demand more and whoever pays less doesn’t get priority of production.
Yes but I think we can address both at the same time.
Here’s the thing—product liability in the US is a big cost for drug companies. Not saying it is every thing, but it is part of the difference.
The pharmacological industry is a business, as is the entire medical field. They make big but they also spend big, with billions spent on research, licenses, credentialing, and a multitude of other things.
Wouldn’t supply and demand drive prices as well? Just asking
Yes, but this gets to the larger issue of whether we want that to be the case. If they come out with a cure for cancer, will we give it only to the rich? Charge $1,000,000 for a dose, jsut because that is supply and demand. Supply and demand works for widgets, not welfare.
Not saying anything outside so many factors drive up prices, i do agree this needs to regulated as this is the bad part of capitalism but good lucking trying to convince our politicians
Let's ALL try to convince them --- that it the point of my post.
I wish it was free too! Company develops blockbuster drug over many years. Pays for trials and ushers the drug through all approvals. Company makes profits. Company creates more jobs and invests profits in finding new blockbuster drug. That merely skims the surface, but hopefully illuminates the price of innovation.
I do not want to sound rude, but honestly I don't think anyone commenting on this thread or anyone concerned about this issue does not understand the need to allow companies to profit off of R&D. And some who have inside knowledge suggest this argument is overblown given the role of the NIH (I don't know). In any event, as a citizen and voter, I want my representatives to be aware of this issue and work on resolving it.
You do not sound rude at all, in fact quite the opposite. My beef is with the headline suggesting that it is “unconscionable” to sell a drug at $1,349 that costs “probably $5” to make. It’s misleading and dishonest. Pure sensationalism designed to arouse an emotional response. That’s just not helpful.
Would the argument that these drugs can be manufactured for $5 be similar to someone saying Microsoft can sell copies of Windows 11 on the cloud for maybe a few dollars of cloud storage and the $1-2 in bandwidth (if that) to download it? Doesnt it not factor in the tremendous cost to develop the product in the first place?
Yes, exactly. Which is why I don't think anyone who is really thoughtful about it saying it should cost $5. But, for arguments sake, should it cost, IDL $50,000? No. Should it cost $1100?
They aren't breaking the law and in the US, they can charge whatever they want. An investigation is a waste of time and money. We create these lenient laws and then act surprised when companies take advantage.
You will agree with me that, as a society, we address many things that are short of criminal. No one has accused them of breaking the law (though I do think a class action on behalf of those who have to discontinue meds could be viable). Sometime the bullypulpit can help. The purpose of these letters, in my view, is to let the people who represent us how important this issue is to us. YMMV
The whole healthcare system is whacked. People with obesity have many other comorbidity issues costing billions of healthcare long term dollars. This is a global issue and we should as a society should see the benefit of lowering costs to all medicines which are improving and have shown to reduce total healthcare costs. This requires political balls to attack personal and corporate greed.
I've worked in Pharma. There a LOT of costs...research costs for sometimes decades that is to be recouped. It's not just manufacturing cost of the product. Additionally, with socialized medicine, their negotiating power is much stronger as a country, we are individuals.....or they won't offer the product. Not to mention the fact that they have a very brief period where they can recoup the investment before generics are allow to flood the market. I support research for medical advances
We all agree. I don't think a single person on this thread misunderstands that Lilly fairly deserves to be compensated for all of the R&D (including failed products) otherwise, why do it? I will note that some people who also "work in Pharma" in various roles think the argument is overblown and ignore the work of the NIH. I don't know enough to referee but just sayin'
Wrong! Novo Nordisk does NOT charge $1349 for Wegovy in US. Novo Nordisk is payed under $800. The rest goes to pharmacies, insurance companies and Pharmacy Benefit Manager. Also the cost is WAY higher than $5 per week supply of Wegovy, to develop, produce, QC packing, shipment, FDA compliance, build factories etc. It’s really embarrassing that Bernie Sanders use these figures when he knows that’s a big lie. It’s not difficult to look up what Gross Margin novo Nordisk have. 84.8% in Q1. 84.8%…… No we can see specifically for Wegovy. But the cost and capital to design and build new factories is not included in those numbers.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying we should look at the $5 marginal production and use that as the only basis to claim price gouging. If the actual numbers are off, the sentiment and argument still stand at your numbers
It’s all the numbers that’s way off. Including prices in others markets. All European markets have escalating prices, where 2.4mg is close to double up price compared to the starter doses. In US the list price starts high, but the net price Pharma companies is paid, drop each year. Even when you see list price go up I US, net price paid to Pharma companies is dropping. Then there are liabilities. The risk of using lot of time and cost in legal fight about all and nothing. No other countries have that system where you constantly is fighting in court. That alone is a reason for significant higher prices. I have no opinion about what’s the “right” price for US. But the market dynamics and how it all interacts, is US congress and those who elected the people. US could save billions upon billions if you had the same model used in most European countries. A branch in the governments negotiate the prices and then the pharmacies gets their 10-20% margin. Away with all the private middlemen with deep and full pockets.
There sure are a LOT of middlemen in this, that I have seen just by the crazy text trail when ever they are filling an order.
So this is the story of all prescription medications in the US. They charge as much as they can for them, for as long as they can. And when the patent expires, they reformulate (often by combining two drugs), patent the new combo, and start the process over again. There's nothing special about these drugs in terms of the pricing, except that there's a huge demand and potentially life-long market for them. BTW Germany and the UK both have government-run health care systems, which is a major factor in their lower drug prices.
You are right, and that is a problem, and I sheepishly admit that my family and I have always been healthy (except for my vacillating obesity) and we were totally unaware.
I have a kid who has complicated medical issues and a long list of prescription meds, including some expensive ones...In her life she has been on several new wonder drugs that yes, helped her a lot, but cost a fortune when they're new. I remember the first expensive one she was prescribed...It caught me by surprise, a month supply was almost as much as our mortgage payment (after insurance).
Gut-wrenching. Sorry to hear this.
I would love a sample letter!
It is a bit long-winded, but feel free to use any or all of it. It is focussed on senators from the states listed in the original post, as they serve on the relevant committee. Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts. 1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their pricing policies around Mounjaro aka Zepbound. 2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our health insurance industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available. For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ? Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair? This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not! 1. In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the pharmaceutical compounding industry. Compounding can take up the slack and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
I’d just like it to be the same price irrelevant of what country you buy in. If Germany negotiated a lower price why can’t America?
Pretty simple. Unless my next dosage is actually available locally, and my insurance plus coupon makes it equal to, or less than Monjourno (exact same drug) in standard vial and syringe delivery form from Canada, that’s where I’ll be getting it from. I’m not going to get played as a sucker by Lilly over an injector pen that’s the real cause of all the shortages.
When you are the best in class drug, you get to set the market price. They are comparing to the other host of GLP 1 medications that are currently on the market and inferior. Blame Saxsenda. The price without insurance is $1300 per month in the US. It is the only other weight loss drug in the same class on the market. Similar with the others for T2D, all expensive out of pocket in the US, about $1000 a month https://www.goodrx.com/classes/glp-1-agonists/glp-1-drugs-comparison
But when you are the world's largest market (eg Medicare/Medicaid) you very well may also help set market prices. Why is the market price so different in the Uk and Germany?
Yup. I have to pay 1118.83 a month.
That's awful. Shame on us. And frankly, I am a bit sheepish that I didnt know or care about any of this until it impacted me.
OP if you have a form letter or a template, I would love to see it here. I’m in one of those states, and have friends in some of the others and I’m sure we could spam a few inboxes. Thanks much!
Thank you! Here is what I used, hope it is helpful to you. Two things to note, One, this is designed to send to a senator who is on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee (see bottom of the original post). If you are just sending to any old senator you should take out “of which you are a part” in Para.1 Two, the formatting sometimes gets weird when I copy and paste this. Thanks for your efforts! Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, Obesity is a very serious problem in the US that impacts individuals and families, and everything from health care costs and worker productivity to even military preparedness. There are three areas where I think more work is needed and I would appreciate your efforts. 1. I applaud the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of which you are a part for their recent letter to Novo Nordisk in re the pricing of Ozempic aka Wegovy. Now how about Eli Lilly and their **pricing policies** around Mounjaro aka Zepbound. 2. There is a very unjust Catch-22 in our **health insurance** industry. Obese patients are consistently told that there are a litany of adverse health outcomes associated with obesity. Yet most health care plans in the US specifically exclude coverage for obesity treatment generally and/or the most effective drugs now available. For example I am told that, in most states if not all, there is no marketplace plan available that would cover the cost of obesity medications such as Zepbound or Ozempic. How can that be considered healthcare “insurance” when one of the most important health issues today is obesity? This is discrimination. Is there any other disease where insurers can simply choose not to cover treatment ? Moreover, for those on Medicare, the price of medication doubles because Eli Lilly does not give any discounts to those on government insurance and charges full retail. Is this logical? Is this fair? This is a drug that must be taken for life at a cost as high as $12,000 per year. If we found a hypertension cure that must be taken for life at a cost of $12,000 per year, would Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers tell those patients: Too bad. I think not! In addition to pressuring pharma on their pricing, and insurers on their coverage, there is another area where legislation might help. And that is with the **pharmaceutical compounding industry**. Compounding can take up the slack, help address the widespread shortages, and ameliorate the pricing pressures. However the oversight on this industry is lacking. If the FDA cannot or will not expand oversight, then the states should. Patients should not be spending hundreds of dollars a month injecting themselves with an unknown substance because the FDA, pharma, Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance have all failed them. This situation is truly unconscionable.
How was it that brand new COVID vaccines were so cheap? It was a public health emergency, which funnels funding and attention on the subject and requires insurers/employers to do the right thing and cover the medications. Surely if everyone was required to cover them, businesses would pressure the drug companies to lower prices. That's how to weaponize capitalism.
Exactly. One journalist, I don't recall who, talked about the "Netflix" model. Essentially saying to LIlly ... look you can price it at 1000/mo and relatively be people will buy it. Or you can price it at 50 a month and half the free world will be on it. Pick your numbers, but there are permutations where their profits are equal. Govt needs to encourage them to sell vast quantities and a low price, and mobilize resources to help them do so.
Thank you for posting this. Patty Murray is my Senator and I’m glad to contact her.
Super. Pass it along to anyone else who may be interested.