TOPIC:

www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/surprise-gil...ss-u-s-than-eu-japan

Now, we have some numbers that illustrate just how big Gilead’s discounts are--and how its U.S. hep C prices after those discounts compare with similar figures overseas.

The fundamental problem is that a 50% discount sounds great until you consider that the mark up is over 10,000%

The discount reduces that to a mere 5,000% and no matter which way you look at it $50,000 is a shit ton of cash for something that costs a few hundred dollars.

Gilead have been magnificent in reframing the arguments from:

1) "Greedy Pharma price gouging" to "Mean insurers refuse to pay"
2) "Prices are unaffordable" to "We give big discounts"
3) "Most of the world can't get access" to "We have an access program for low income countries"

These two links show part of their strategy:

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-...o-cover-pricey-pills

www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-class-actio...epatitis-c-treatment

Oh I agree. I wasn't defending them. Thanks for the links.

Tommy wrote: www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/surprise-gil...ss-u-s-than-eu-japan

Now, we have some numbers that illustrate just how big Gilead’s discounts are--and how its U.S. hep C prices after those discounts compare with similar figures overseas.

So are you paying the discount price of $50,000.00++ or going with GP2U Trials for $49,000 less money and same results? Big decision.

James-Freeman-facebook wrote: The fundamental problem is that a 50% discount sounds great until you consider that the mark up is over 10,000%

The discount reduces that to a mere 5,000% and no matter which way you look at it $50,000 is a shit ton of cash for something that costs a few hundred dollars.

Gilead have been magnificent in reframing the arguments from:

1) "Greedy Pharma price gouging" to "Mean insurers refuse to pay"
2) "Prices are unaffordable" to "We give big discounts"
3) "Most of the world can't get access" to "We have an access program for low income countries"
....

Generally speaking, I see "reframing" as a technique having two facets:
- it can be used to correct a wrong understanding or provide a better clarity for an argument / situation / context / problem, etc. // not Gilead's case
- it can be used to divert attention from a certain "sensitive" situation with the goal to either close that situation or to win additional time until a new/different context will arise/appear.

Thinking on Gilead and the today's world where people are quite well connected to the internet, I believe G's strategy to establish an extremely high price for the HCV drugs took into account among other aspects also the following 2:
- the "20-30 years protection" given by the Patent laws will not resist in front of the generics, NOT when 200 million people are having HCV - especially that the information about the medical tourism, buyer's clubs, news about generics are spread much much faster than 15 years ago (HIV case)
- the "reframing" techniques mentioned above allows Gilead to either stay in control of the monopoly they have, either win additional time in which they can make a lot of money and fast.

Cheers,
RHF

$500 a pill.
Still obscene. And still an age-old retail ploy-jack the price of an item up to ridiculous levels and then offer a "half-price" sale and make out like a bandit.
m