OT: Abuterol inhaler

Which way does the money trail go? (Hint: Many credible scientists say the ozone hole is natural) Doesn't matter, out of our control. If Freon is so bad, why is it not banned in the rest of the world?

Costco is where most of my family and friends get their meds. When I can get a doctor to write another set of scrpts for me, thats where Ill get my BP meds too.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her t*ts" John Griffin

LOL, please explain how treehuggers stand to gain financially?

Smithy

Hint: try looking up the Montreal Protocol and acquaint yourself with a few facts instead of running off at the mouth. As of now, 183 countries are signatories to the protocol which covers the banning of various ozone depleting substances including freon. Has been in existence for

If you want to place the blame for your predicament on someone, try your parents.

Smithy

They do. I've been using the turbohaler for several years - just went to the Discus. Good thing the Wife has a drug plan at work!!!! Platinum would likely be cheaper!!

snipped-for-privacy@lycos.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews2.newsguy.com:

Cost: astronomical.

Benefit: non-existant. [Generally harmful, rarely of no effect at all.]

The concept that government "protects" anything other than itself: ludicrus!

The concept that stupid individuals should be protected from the consequences of their own stupidity: insane.

I don't believe the BS about freon and ozone. You can believe whatever you want. Treehuggers usually believe what they are told to believe and become the pointed to group used for others to make money.

I guess I wasn't clear. The Discus and the Turbohaler have patents, but I was referring to the non-CFC albuterol inhalers. They're the ones that (I just checked) have patents, and are charging ridiculous prices.

A lot of up-to-date pulminologists are getting away from albuterol.

-- Ed Huntress

Yeah I've noticed what you're inclined to believe, anything that the majority don't. Tell me, how do you keep the sand out of your ears and nostrils?

Smithy.

Since Non-CFC salbutamol (albuterol) inhalers costs the equivalent of $4 -5 in the UK and Europe, the prices _are_ ridiculous. This is a drug that has been around for 40 years or so. What innovation is there to patent and what costs are there to recover?

Mark Rand RTFM

I suspect that there is more to it than the propellant, since the warnings now include the fact that patients may react differently to the new formulation.

Regardless, I'll check out the patents. As for the price you pay, it's probably beaten down by government regulations. You have price controls, remember, and many drugs are expected to make their profit in the US, not in Europe.

-- Ed Huntress

Tom, you have unwittingly identified one of the major problems in todays world. That is, otherwise intelligent people can be COMPLETELY blindsided by ideology.

It wasnt the tree huggers - you were wrong - but, let that go for the time being.

Its not a conspiracy by the chemical companies - basic chemistry and well documented research shows that one. again, let that one go for the time being.

Its not the US being held up to dry by adopting a convention the rest of the world ignores (re CFC's) - as has been pointed out, 183 other countries have adopted the ban on CFC's. Again, let that one go for the time being.....

US drug prices are NOT subsidising the rest of the world - they are just making less money than in the US. And in the US , the drug companies spend more money on consumer advertising than they do on research. (In the rest of the world, drug advertising is banned by law to prevent artificial market driven demand.)

Tom, I have great respect for you as a metalworker and as a person - but could you use the same critical thinking about this issue that you would apply to a metalworking problem?

Now, who or what are you going to blame next?

Andrew VK3BFA.

PS - hey, I am as guilty of ideologically driven gut reactions as anyone else, but, on a good day, TRY to get to the FACTS of the case rather than relying on emotion. Sometimes I can, othertimes I go right off and just RANT like any other winger. (Right or Left)

My Son in Law has a T shirt that has "Only Human" written on it - I told him I want one like that for my birthday.....

Ok everybody...it's Andrew's fault!

Since you believe in junk science, I'll bet "Global Warming...Kumbaya" is top on your list of other human caused events. Hurricane Katrina was started by ULF transmissions? World Trade Center blowed-up by internal pre-set charges? "Scientists" say so, so it must all be true. Who's the one with a sand issue:?

PS. The word "Kumbaya" must always be in the same sentence as "Global Warming".

Well I am not going to get into the discussion about who is doing what, who is making an excess profit, patents, who did what to whom, and when they did it, or any of that other stuff. All I know is that I have used Albuterol for a number of years, and my medical provider changed the medication they provide. They now provide Levalbuterol. Levalbuterol is not as effective as Albuterol for me, and that is what matters. (I don't care for the taste of Levalbuterol either.) I have mentioned this to my family doctor, the pluminologists, and the oncologists that are treating my medical condition, but unless I am willing to pay the total cost for Albuterol, (which would be a long term financial problem), I will be using Levabuterol.

Are you taking the Xopenex brand? That's what my mother is using. I've read all of the major clinical studies on that stuff. If it's Xopenex, it's surprising that any insurance payer would switch to it *over* albuterol. It's much more expensive.

I'm a bit skeptical, but it is true that the studies (and my mother's comparative tests) show that it causes less tachycardia. However, she gets faster relief with albuterol.

-- Ed Huntress

Not me. I just pointed out that the governments of 183 countries, the US included, were sufficiently convinced in the science of ozone depletion and its potential effects, to ban Freon, whereas as you, living in your own little world, disagree. For whatever mickey mouse reason, today it appears to be affecting your wallet, tomorrow who knows? How unamerican that is that . How dare you interfere with the "Great American Credo":- Maximizing profits.

Will WMD always be synonymous with war in Iraq? Or can one ascribe that to junk intelligence?

Smithy

Yes they are filling my Rx with Xopenex HFA now. I don't know which is the most expensive or inexpensive, and don't really care. They made the decision to only stock one in their HospitalPharmacy system or in their Mail Order Rx system. If I use the DOD or VA systems, then I have to use what they stock.

Your enthusiasm for critical thinking is one I share, Andrew, but it works best if it's well-informed. Most of your post seems quite sensible to me except for this last comment, which sounds exactly like the words we hear from labor parties around most of the world, and it doesn't hold up.

For a third-party perspective, here's most of an article published a couple of years ago by _The Economist_, which, as you probably know, is a British publication, not an American one:

===================================================== The trouble with cheap drugs

Jan 29th 2004 From The Economist print edition

Europe pays a lot less for its drugs than America. But do hidden costs mean that Europeans are actually worse off?

IN THE drug industry, they call it "Europe's free ride". Government pricing regimes mean that prescription drugs cost far less in Europe than in America, where a growing proportion of new drugs are developed-presumably because Americans are willing to bear the lion's share of development costs. On the face of it, Europe reaps big rewards. It spends 60% per head less on drugs than America. In 1992, the gap was 30%. Had spending kept pace with America, last year alone Europe would have shelled out an extra $160 billion. The cumulative "saving" since 1992 is approaching $1 trillion-quite some free ride...

...America certainly resents European meddling with prices, blaming it for higher drug prices at home. Mark McClennan, head of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees America's drug industry, said recently: "The main reason [American drug] prices are higher is that our country is paying the bulk of the costs of developing new treatments. That's got many Americans angry."

But should Americans be angry? And should they force down drug prices at home? True, a few big firms, such as Pfizer, the global leader, feel that in Europe they lose profits that could otherwise fund new research (or go to shareholders). True, also, America suffers from large "grey" import markets in both Canada and Mexico, as canny consumers cross the border into cheaper markets to buy otherwise costly drugs (see article).

On the other hand, America gains from its growing dominance of drug research and development (R&D). A decade ago, Europe and America each spent roughly $10 billion a year on drug R&D. Now, America spends almost $30 billion annually, and Europe a little more than $20 billion. A growing number of firms now base their R&D efforts in America. Drugs R&D in Germany fell by 3% in 1992-2002.

One result is a striking decline in European drug innovation. Bain examined how many so-called new molecular entities (NMEs) have been produced in recent years. In 1993-97, Europe launched 81 NMEs and America 48. But in

With the transatlantic shift in R&D goes many high-value jobs, as well as a greater share of the industry's profits. According to Bain, America created

European drug executives are increasingly concerned. On January 26th, for instance, Jean-Pierre Garnier, boss of GSK, spoke out against the loss of jobs, arguing that Europe's love of red tape is throttling innovation. Maybe so. But the thrust of Bain's study is that the main reason for America's growing dominance of drug R&D is not the red tape so much as Europe's tougher price controls on drugs, particularly new drugs...

=====================================================

The part I snipped in the middle and at the end argue that Europe is paying for their price controls in jobs and research lost, which is another issue. Much of the research going on in Europe is financed in anticipation of making profits in the US, not in the rest of the world.

I happen to be working on the marketing for one such drug now. It was approved in the EU in June and the projected profits there are minimal, with no possibility of paying for the R&D or the marketing with EU sales.

But US stock market analysts are betting that the drug will be a US$3 Billion blockbuster if it gets FDA approval here. The market in terms of unit sales is not that much larger here, but the price will be many times the price they can charge in Europe or Japan (or Canada or Australia). That's where the profit is.

There's an upside and a downside to this, but the points we're talking about boil down to the fact that US consumers subsidize the world's drug-development costs. You won't find much argument about that in the pharmaceutical industry. The only place you hear it argued is by politicians in those countries in question.

-- Ed Huntress