Below the Bottom of the Barrel

        Just when you think (hope) that perhaps  campaign rhetoric and political double speak have  reached the bottom of the barrel, the bottom drops out. I actually ran across an op-ed citing Herman Cain (who wasn't able) as blaming the current furor over the recent Epi-pen price hike on first Mrs. Clinton and then Democrats in general. This represents monumental ignorance worthy of display in the Valley of the Kings.

       The gist of this screed is that Mrs. Clinton is at fault  because....well, because she's a Democrat. On the grander, and more lunatic scale, the writer than cites "Democratic control of the FDA," Democrat's insistence on "excessive  government regulation" and the granting of monopolies to drug companies in that order.  

       Where to start?  Take the most obvious lie first. Excessive regulation in whose eyes? Not in the minds of those who were denied Thalidomide because the FDA was unsure of it's possible side effects  at a time when European women were delivering seriously compromised babies. Of course the Epi-pen brouhaha isn't about regulation in any way, but given the chance to smear any regulatory agency , why not?  While the process may be lengthy, the aim is to assure  safety, and even then sometimes the law of unintended consequences jumps up  - can you say Vioxx, Ambien and Adderall? 

         The writer apparently yearns for the  good old days when you could slap a label on a bottle  of  swamp water flavored with licorice and containing 25% alcohol, tempered with morphine, and sell it over the counter.  Many patent medicines had dangerous ingredients, not just potentially toxic substances like arsenic, mercury and lead, but cocaine, heroin and high concentrations of alcohol. So who was the liberal scum who pushed the Congress to create a federal oversight agency to protect consumers? Why, it was that Republican Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt! Blaming the FDA for an agency created 110 years ago seems a bit daft.

        Second, the writer then implies, nay, actually states, that the FDA "gives manufacturers patents which eliminate competition, keeping prices high."  Actually, Sparky,  Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright  and Patent Clause, is the culprit. You might not like it, but blame Madison and Hamilton in 1789, not the FDA in 2016.

       Finally, the writer than implies that the price hike is the result of regulation prohibiting competition because "in a free market....etc, etc, ad nauseum!"  First, and foremost, one  linchpin of capitalist endeavor is the right to benefit from one's own efforts. That's what patents and copyrights are all about. 'Tis pity this moron's readers don't see past the partisan smoke and mirrors and understand how directly self contradictory this line of "reasoning" is. 

      Every major industry and industrialist in the US dearly  regards patent protection as an absolute essential. Of all the aforementioned, however, no industry so jealously holds to it as Big Pharma.  Of all the industrial categories which spend big bucks  lobbying the US Congress, none spends as much as Big Pharma. With an outlay in 2015  of  $3.395 BILLION, Pharma far outdistanced the second place Insurance industry's $2.3 billion!  Of course they are lobbying a Republican controlled Congress, but this isn't really a partisan issue to anyone other than Mr. Cain, perhaps.

       Finally, for the discussion we should perhaps really be having: How much profit is too much? Why, in a relatively flat economy with a low cost of living increase should the CEO of any corporation see a salary increase of  671%  as Heather Bresch of Mylan did ? Why should a business executive such as Robert Nardelli (formerly of  Home Depot) get paid $210 million for being fired?  Richard S. Fuld Jr.'s face was the universal symbol of Wall Street greed. He walked  away from Lehman a wealthy man who earned over $500 million. But taxpayers were left with a $700 billion bill to rescue Wall Street and an economy in crisis. Big Pharma salaries soar far above the average.

        This extortion of consumers, many of whom have no choice but to use their product,  is what not just Mylan but all Pharma companies do as their  proprietary drugs near "end of patent" protection. In fact, in just over a year, from December, 2014 to January 2016,  9 frequently prescribed medications from 6 different manufacturers saw a price increase of a larger percentage then  the Epi-pen. The leader was Daraprim,  which went from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, a 5,500% hike!  This of course made the loathsome Martin Shkreli the most hated man in America, albeit briefly, as his 15 minutes have elapsed. 

        Lesser known but equally reprehensible, Novum  Pharma's  Novacort saw a 3,000% jump over the same period. The difference?  Novacort isn't a life saving drug, like Daraprim or the  Epi-pen's adrenalin. Additionally, drug companies rationalize away any sense of guilt by pointing out that insurance covers most of the cost, while omitting  the concomitant  fact that insurance costs will increase as a result. This also is of no consolation  to those on  Medicare/Medicaid who will  have to pay full co-pay based on the much higher cost, since a 2006 Bush administration law promised Big Pharma that the government wouldn't negotiate drug prices.           

       And the final insult? The Epi-pen patent isn't for the drug (epinephrine, or synthetic adrenaline, which the body secretes naturally) which it injects.  Jokichi Takamine first isolated epinephrine in 1901. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most important medications needed in a basic health system. It is widely available as a generic medication. The wholesale cost in the developing world is between $0.10 and $0.95 a vial , yeah, that's less than a buck per dose! Epi-pen's patent covers the injector system only!  The difficulty has been in getting alternative delivery methods approved, and there is one, Adrenaclick, which costs about $$144  per 2 injector Pack  at Walmart.  For the math challenged, that's about 1/5 of the cost of Epi-pen which does exactly the same thing. The Epi-pen 2 pack will cost you $630 at the same Walmart. Why? Because drug companies "encourage"  doctors, in many cases, to prescribe their brand specific form of a drug. This is certainly the case with the Epi-pen.

        Of course, as previously mentioned all this is Hillary Clinton's fault, right?  As a footnote, in 2015, 58% of Big Pharma donations went to Republican members of Congress!