Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

NanuqoftheNorth

Ocasio-Cortez confronts CEO for nearly $2K price tag on HIV drug that costs $8 in Australia

Recommended Posts

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) confronted a CEO Thursday for pricing a drug designed to reduce the risk of HIV transmission at $8 in Australia but over $1,500 in the U.S.

"You're the CEO of Gilead. Is it true that Gilead made $3 billion in profits from Truvada in 2018?" Ocasio-Cortez asked Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day.

"$3 billion in revenue," he clarified.

"The current list price is $2,000 a month in the United States, correct?" she asked, referring to Truvada.

"It's $1,780 in the United States," O'Day responded.

"Why is it $8 in Australia?" Ocasio-Cortez countered.

"Truvada still has patent protection in the United States and in the rest of the world it is generic," O'Day explained, adding, "It will be generically available in the United States as of September 2020."

"I think it's important here that we notice that we the public, we the people, developed this drug. We paid for this drug, we lead and developed all the patents to create prep and then that patent has been privatized despite the fact that the patent is owned by the public, who refused to enforce it," Ocasio-Cortez said.

"There's no reason this should be $2,000 a month, people are dying because of it and there's no enforceable reason for it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444091-ocasio-cortez-confronts-ceo-for-nearly-2k-price-tag-on-drug-that-costs-8-in

 

 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


She's literally asking the questions everyone wants answers for and actually has a feel for what the public is concerned about, yet Republicans and centrist know it alls expect us to agree with them that she's somehow not cut out for this or less intelligent. Like, it's laughable how brazen people are when they adopt dishonest political opinions to make themselves look good or smart, but here we are with a legion of "reply guys" intimidated with her on Twitter, and Fox News hosts lying about her bc the people who run their network hate her. I'm willing to forgive her for a few missteps just because they're so flustered by her, clearly. 

  • Pie 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally everything you've gone "this is bullshit" about, she's talked to the people in charge and asked them to their face "why is this such bullshit" and people are acting like that isn't what they've wanted the whole time. Retired and bull and the like just hate her bc she's a latina woman. 

  • Pie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on her, she is really coming to form nicely. I just wish she would have followed up the profit-revenue comment a bit more before she got to the point.

AKA. When he corrected it to revenue, she should have followed that with “and out of that revenue, how much is profit?” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ImaginaryKev said:

Literally everything you've gone "this is bullshit" about, she's talked to the people in charge and asked them to their face "why is this such bullshit" and people are acting like that isn't what they've wanted the whole time. Retired and bull and the like just hate her bc she's a latina woman. 

They also hate her because they're gullible, and they've been told to. 

  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

 

"The current list price is $2,000 a month in the United States, correct?" she asked, referring to Truvada.

"It's $1,780 in the United States," O'Day responded.

Fox News: "Gilead CEO Fact Checks Progressive Dem in hearing"

*thumbnail of AOC with an awkward expression on her face*

  • Pie 1
  • Pumpkin Spice Latte 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ImaginaryKev said:

Literally everything you've gone "this is bullshit" about, she's talked to the people in charge and asked them to their face "why is this such bullshit" and people are acting like that isn't what they've wanted the whole time. Retired and bull and the like just hate her bc she's a latina woman. 

Literally people in this thread are hedging on her because of her "naivety".  The fact is the company is show great revenue growth with dividends being paid to stock holders for last qtr BECAUSE of the extensive sales (at high cost) of the drug.    A drug that research was partially funded by government grants.

It IS the peoples drug as we were part in bringing forward.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Folks spent years in his U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lab developing a treatment to block deadly HIV in monkeys. Then San Francisco AIDS researcher Robert Grant, using $50 million in federal grants, proved the treatment worked in people who engaged in risky sex.

Their work — almost fully funded by U.S. taxpayers — created a new use for an older prescription drug called Truvada: preventing HIV infection. But the U.S. government, which patented the treatment in 2015, is not receiving a penny for that use of the drug from Gilead Sciences, ­Truvada’s maker, which earned $3 billion in Truvada sales last year.

The extraordinary standoff between the CDC and a drug company over patent rights raises a big question for the Trump administration: How aggressively should the government attempt to enforce its patents against an industry partner?

The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, has patented more than 2,500 inventions created with taxpayer dollars since 1976, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

ntellectual-property disputes between private companies are common, and they often wind up in court. But it is rare for the government to bring lawsuits over pharmaceutical patents.

Gilead, which enjoys a U.S. monopoly on Truvada, charges between $1,600 and $2,000 for a month’s supply of a pill that can be manufactured for a fraction of that amount. The number of new HIV infections in the United States has barely budged, meanwhile, and is stuck around 40,000 a year, according to CDC estimates.

Activists want the government to take a more aggressive stance against Gilead. Their complaints are part of a broader wave of anger over drug companies reaping hefty financial rewards by capitalizing on taxpayer-funded research.

 

The government is not locked in a battle for profits, like a private company, said Neel U. Sukhatme, a professor and patent expert at Georgetown Law. Rather, NIH and CDC officials see their role as encouraging the commercialization of government-financed discoveries, not placing curbs on them, Sukhatme said. That tends to take patent infringement lawsuits off the table.

“They may not want to be in the position of suing these companies that arguably are producing valuable stuff,’’ he said.

But that stance increasingly is challenged by political anger over high drug prices. Consumer advocates and members of Congress have stepped up demands that the government exercise its rights under existing law to license generic competition or imports during shortages or unwarranted price spikes; several bills would enhance such “compulsory licensing’’ provisions.

The National Institutes of Health awarded grants to conduct more studies, this time in clinical trials in humans. Grant’s study, led from his lab in San Francisco and published in 2010 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that the drug lowered the risk of contracting HIV by more than 92 percent.

In addition to $50 million in government money, $17 million for the study came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Grant said.

Based on those clinical trials in humans, Gilead won approval to market Truvada for PrEP, the new indication, in 2012.

Gilead has earned $36.2 billion on Truvada since 2004, according to its annual reports.

 

---https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharma-giant-profits-from-hiv-treatment-funded-by-taxpayers-and-patented-by-the-government/2019/03/26/cee5afb4-40fc-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01fee9f30d74

 

There research was government and private foundation funded.  Its a huge myth that its private companies that do all the testing/research and investment to bring forward new drugs.  A lot of it is funded through government and private grants.   Revenue from drugs funded this way almost are pure profit  portfolio  to the overall company behind them

 

Edited by Fryfan
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harbingers said:

Good on her, she is really coming to form nicely. I just wish she would have followed up the profit-revenue comment a bit more before she got to the point.

AKA. When he corrected it to revenue, she should have followed that with “and out of that revenue, how much is profit?” 

You are always giving her a hard time lol. 

I think the point was that they receive billions of dollars for a drug that is priced at around $2,000 in the US but only $8 in Australia. 

Not that it wouldn't be nice to know the profit, but I think in limited time she was trying to get to the meat of the question, and not go down that rabbit hole that would allow someone to filibuster the answer. 

 

 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, teeray said:

You are always giving her a hard time lol. 

I think the point was that they receive billions of dollars for a drug that is priced at around $2,000 in the US but only $8 in Australia. 

Not that it wouldn't be nice to know the profit, but I think in limited time she was trying to get to the meat of the question, and not go down that rabbit hole that would allow someone to filibuster the answer. 

 

 

Yeah Harbi has the hard on over her like Fox News.  The profit is hard to dig out 

A. because this was grant and government funded so their research "costs" were covered

B. profit is not shown on line by line like that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

Fox News: "Gilead CEO Fact Checks Progressive Dem in hearing"

*thumbnail of AOC with an awkward expression on her face*

Clearly bad faith propaganda, only an absolute hack would take the position that her point is somehow invalidated because she rounded up in the manner anyone else would

Jesus fug, these people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fryfan said:

Yeah Harbi has the hard on over her like Fox News.  The profit is hard to dig out 

A. because this was grant and government funded so their research "costs" were covered

B. profit is not shown on line by line like that.

 

 

Holy fug you are dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, teeray said:

You are always giving her a hard time lol. 

I think the point was that they receive billions of dollars for a drug that is priced at around $2,000 in the US but only $8 in Australia. 

Not that it wouldn't be nice to know the profit, but I think in limited time she was trying to get to the meat of the question, and not go down that rabbit hole that would allow someone to filibuster the answer. 

 

 

I’m not sure how you don’t see the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Holy fug you are dumb. 

Me and the Washington post.  Right?

 

this is twice this week you have hoisted yourself above her with your bleaching into the wind. 

 

As an exxon stooge I know you hate her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,837
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Slapdad
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      144,652
    • Total Posts
      4,725,618
  • Posts

    • Since most people forget, Moton spent much of the preseason weeks at LT and started there week 1. He looked great at LT against a very good Dallas DL and he also looked great in the week 3 (the one where starters play almost the entire game) preseason game against New England, another solid DL. That said, he looked just as good at RT when Williams went down the second time. Moton’s got the ability to ply both tackle spots, which is good and bad. Good because it helps us have depth because he can switch if a backup is better at one or the other. Bad because I worry that they’ll continually move him instead of letting him become a possible Pro-Bowl tackle. I think he’s got that potential.
    • Because it’s actually an accredited news organization? 
    • Perfectly sums up the conservative relationship with AOC. What the hell is a "look at me moron?" What you're basically saying is you can't stop looking at her, so you need to find it a derogatory thing so you can make it mesh with your tribalistic political ethos. You're basically Lisa Simpson:   The sooner you Pubs reconcile with your confused boner, the sooner you'll be able to grow up. Maybe then you'll stop worrying about who other people marry, what women do with their bodies, and what bathroom someone wants to use.
×
×
  • Create New...