Monday, August 29, 2016
Saturday, August 27, 2016
The EpiPen Scandal Is Worse Than You Think: What You’re Not Being Told
Promptly after, politicians seized the opportunity to bank on this crisis by promising to “do something.”
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton urged Mylan to voluntarily slash the prices of its products while promising that, once she’s elected, her “plan to address exorbitant drug price hikes like these” will be finally implemented. This is a particularly empty promise considering Mylan has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which was recently revealed to be peddling influence in exchange for cash.
Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are also pressuring the manufacturer to disclose more about its pricing. Even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) — whose own daughter, Heather Bresch, serves as Mylan’s CEO — weighed in, claiming he, too, shares his colleagues’ “concerns about the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs.”
But none of what these politicians are saying rings true to anyone who’s paying attention. Here’s why.
The Monopolistic Origins of the EpiPen
The autoinjector known as the EpiPen provides injections of epinephrine in cases of serious or even life-threatening allergy attacks. It is derived from another product known as the Mark I NAAK ComboPen, a device created for a monopoly: the U.S. military.The device was designed by Sheldon Kaplan for Survival Technology, Inc., a company with a long history of working with the Pentagon. Once the ComboPen was created, it was sent to the U.S. military to treat soldiers who had been exposed to nerve agents.
In 2007, Mylan “purchased the generic drugs division of Germany’s Merck KGaA for $6.7 billion,” acquiring the EpiPen brand of autoinjectors. Under Merck, the devices cost $7 each, which resulted in just $200 million in gains each year, a mere 5 percent of Merck’s revenue at the time.
But Bresch saw potential in this simple plastic device and focused on how to make the newly purchased brand something that could be widely used. For her dream to come true, she needed the assistance of experts in the monopoly business. That’s when she turned to the U.S. government for help.
The FDA, Washington, and Crony Capitalism Are All to Blame
Though the EpiPen is not covered by patent protection, Bresch’s close relationship with Washington may have helped her company ensure competition wasn’t an issue.In an article for the Mises Institute, Jonathan Newman writes that “Mylan has been repeatedly protected from competition, and it has repeatedly (and predictably) increased the price of EpiPens in response.”
According to Bloomberg, Mylan has been aggressive in its approach to regulators.
For the past seven years, Bresch has been “[turning] to Washington for help. Along with patient groups, Mylan pushed for federal legislation encouraging states to stock epinephrine devices in schools.”
In 2010, when the FDA launched new federal guidelines related to epinephrine prescriptions, Mylan stopped selling single pens, switching to twin-packs. Bloomberg reports that, at the time, “35 percent of prescriptions were for single EpiPens,” but as the new rules were implemented, Mylan “changed label rules to allow the devices to be marketed to anyone at risk.” While the guidelines targeted persons who had severe allergic reactions only, Bresch saw the rule changes as “big events that we’ve started to capitalize on,” she said in October of 2011.
After a seven-year-old died due to an allergic reaction to peanuts at a Virginia school, Congress passed a law pressuring states to ensure its schools had epinephrine devices on hand at all times. The year this bill passed, Mylan spent over $1 million in lobbying alone. Now, Bloomberg reports, “47 states require or encourage schools to stock the devices.”
As part of the EpiPen popularization plan, Mylan started handing out “free EpiPens to more than 59,000 schools” in 2012. In 2014, the company allegedly spent $35 million on TV ads, and in 2015, Mylan signed a deal with Walt Disney, stocking theme parks and cruise ships with the devices. Between 2012 and 2015, the company also spent over $6 million in lobbying.
Over the past seven years, Bresch’s persistence and power-driven attitude helped the company spread the EpiPen far and wide, causing its use to grow 67 percent in the United States. EpiPen prescriptions are now so common that pediatric allergist Robert Wood from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine says EpiPen is the new “Kleenex.”
But making the EpiPen so popular wasn’t an easy task, mostly because Mylan finally bumped into some competition along the way.
Competition Drives Prices Down — And Mylan Wasn’t Down with That
In 2009, Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, and Mylan sued Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. over a patent-infringement. At the time, the Israeli company was accused of using Mylan’s design without permission. But in 2012, both parties reached an agreement, and Teva was allowed to seek approval from the FDA for its epinephrine injecting device.According to Gizmodo, Teva has failed to obtain approval from the FDA to develop affordable generic versions of the EpiPen. The company says it won’t try to go through the same process again until 2017.
The only other device that was closer to competing with Mylan’s EpiPen was Auvi-Q, and it was also driven out of the market. In 2015, the company launched a recall campaign claiming the devices could be delivering faulty dosages.
“Epinephrine is extremely cheap,” reported Jonathan Newman. In order to understand why Mylan was able to raise the prices of EpiPen, we mustn’t look at the device or drug. We also cannot blame the markets for this issue. Instead, we must look at how Mylan keeps competition at bay.
In a free market scenario, “[a] firm cannot just willy-nilly raise their prices without a competing firm leaping in to give consumers what they want at a lower price,” Newman explains. But in the real world, “Mylan has a great friend who keeps would-be competitors out of the market, or at least makes it so difficult for them that they eventually go out of business.” Mylan’s friend, in this case, is the FDA — a government agency.
Without the ability to pay corporations any favors, Washington power players would not be passing resolutions and pieces of legislation that benefit Mylan. In order to understand why Mylan’s monopoly over the EpiPen has driven the prices up, we must look at the system at hand.
The current environment favors this influence game played by both government officials and corporate drones, but ultimately, the consumer pays the price for their follies. And that’s why few members of the mainstream media are taking the time to explain this relationship. Mostly because, they too, are involved in this systemic influence scheme.
Please share this.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
98 Facts and Secrets Facebook Knows about YOU
You might say it’s your partner or perhaps your mom, assuming you’ve had the sort of tame life a parent would find acceptable.
But you’d be wrong, because tech companies now have more information about you than almost anyone else.
The firm with the largest information stash is likely to be Google, which could theoretically tell an awful lot about your life based on your search history.
Facebook has a staggering amount of info about its users
But coming in at second place has to be Facebook, the social network which holds gazillions of our photos, conversations and innermost thoughts.
Now Mark Zuckerberg’s firm has revealed the 98 “data points” it holds on all users, which can be found in a new website revealing how it targets users with advertising.
“We want the ads people see on Facebook to be interesting, useful and relevant,” a Facebook spokesman said.
“Like many companies, we use widely available information to help show people better ads. However, unlike many of those companies, we provide information that helps explain this practice, and we give people ways to opt out and help control their experience.”
So here are the facts and secrets Facebook has found out about you or is trying to discover, according to the Washington Post.
1. Your location
2. Age
3. Generation
4. Gender
5. Language
6. Education level
7. Field of study
8. School
9. Ethnic background
10. Income and net worth
11. Home ownership and type of home
12. Value of home
13. Size of your property
14. Square footage of home
15. The year your home was built
16. Who lives in your house
17. Whether you have an anniversary approaching in the next month
18. If you’re living away from family or hometown
19. Whether you’re friends with someone who has an anniversary, is newly married or engaged, recently moved, or has an upcoming birthday
20. If you’re in a long-distance relationship
21. If you’re in a new relationship
22. If you have have a new job
23. If you’re recently engaged
24. If you’ve just got married
25. If you’ve moved house recently
26. When your birthday is coming up
27. Parents
28. Expectant parents
29. Mothers, divided by ‘type’ (which includes ‘soccer mums’ or other maternal tribes)
30. If you are likely to engage in politics
31. Whether you are conservative or liberal
32. Relationship status
33. Employer
34. Industry
35. Job title
36. Office type
37. Interests
38. Whether you own a motorcycle
39. If you’re planning to buy a car
40. If you have purchased auto parts or accessories recently
41. If you are likely to buy auto parts or services
42. The style and brand of your car
43. The year your car was bought
44. Age of car
45. How much money you’re likely to spend on next car
46. Where you are likely to buy next car from
47. How many employees your company has
48. If you own small businesses
49. If you work in management or are executives
50. If you have donated to charity (divided by type)
51. Operating system
52. If you play browser games
53. If you own a gaming console
54. If you have created a Facebook event
55. If you have used Facebook Payments
56. If you have spent more than average on Facebook Payments
57. If you administer a Facebook page
58. If you have recently uploaded photos to Facebook
59. Internet browser
60. Email service
61. Early/late adopters of technology
62. If you are an expat and what country you left
63. If you belong to a credit union, national bank or regional bank
64. If you are an investor
65. Number of credit lines
66. If you are an active credit card users
67. Credit card type
68. If you own a debit card
69. If you carry a balance on your credit card
70. If you listen to the radio
71. What TV shows you like
72. If you use a mobile device and what brand it is
73. Internet connection type
74. If you have recently bought a smartphone or tablet
75. Whether you access the Internet through a smartphone or tablet
76. If you use coupons
77. The type of clothing your household buys
78. Which time of year you do the most shopping
79. Whether you are a ‘heavy’ buyer of beer, wine or spirits
80. What groceries you buy
81. Whether you buy beauty products
82. Whether you buy medications
83. Whether you buy/spend money on household products
84. Whether you buy/spend money on products for kids or pets, and what kinds of pets
85. If your household makes more purchases than is average
86. If you tend to shop online or offline
87. The types of restaurants user you eat at
88. The kinds of stores you shop at
89. If you’re interest in adverts offering auto insurance, mortgages or satellite tv
90. Length of time user you have lived your house
91. If you are likely to move soon
92. If you are are interested in the Olympics, football or cricket
93. If you travel frequently
94. Whether you commute to work
95. The type of holiday you enjoy
96. If you have recently returned from a holiday
97. If you have used a travel app
98. Whether you are involved in a timeshare
Please share this.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
The Triumph of the Ad-Blockers
About two months ago, I could not access Forbes. I got a message: turn off your ad-blocking software. I didn't. I notice that Forbes has reverted to its three-second delay strategy.
The Telegraph, a British site, tried the same strategy. That lasted about a month.
I know why. Almost no one turned off the ad-blocking feature. It's not clear how to do this. I don't recall. I decided to ignore the problem. There is always some site that offers the same story.
The financial sites, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times still close access. So do the New York Times and the London Times. But revenues keep falling for the two Times's. No one needs either of these two Establishment outlets. Their information is available elsewhere.
This is bad news for journalists. We are told that we are dependent on these people. We are told that the Web is destroying journalism. So far, I have not been aware of this. The attrition is continual, yet I notice no decline in the quantity or quality of information. I notice an improvement. Open access is working.
Maybe the doom-sayers are correct. Maybe, someday, there will be a tipping point. The flow of high quality information will decline exponentially. But if it does, there will be profit-seeking sellers of such information.
We are seeing how the mainstream media are dealing with Trump and Clinton. It's kid gloves for the stumbling lady.
The pro-Trump people are seeing just how biased the industry is. For millions of Americans, the reality of media bias is now hitting home. They will not forget or forgive. Mainstream journalism is losing legitimacy. This is good. The less legitimacy these vultures have, the better.
I like the phrase "presstitutes." This well describes the industry as a whole. It is a self-policing, self-screening cartel of liberals and fellow travelers. All cartels break down in the face of price competition. This is what is happening to the cartel of journalism.
The inability of a handful of online publishers to deal with ad-blockers is a reminder: they have no functioning business model. They try one thing after another, but nothing works.
The "business model" of Progressivism is no longer working. The failure of the global warming campaign is obvious. The warmers are unable to get meaningful international controls. This has been their biggest campaign for 25 years. It has failed.
Progressivism is a cartel. It is breaking down. It wins only by default. Its political leaders no longer inspire confidence. Yet the whole movement has been a massive confidence game for over a century: faith in bureaucracy. That faith is waning. So are new revenue sources to support the existing programs, which are all running deficits.
They promised a new world order. It's the same old order: power grabbing and tax grabbing.
Hillary Clinton does not inspire confidence. Yet politics is a confidence game.
When confidence in the Federal Reserve fails, the Progressives' game will be over.
Please share this.
The Telegraph, a British site, tried the same strategy. That lasted about a month.
I know why. Almost no one turned off the ad-blocking feature. It's not clear how to do this. I don't recall. I decided to ignore the problem. There is always some site that offers the same story.
The financial sites, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times still close access. So do the New York Times and the London Times. But revenues keep falling for the two Times's. No one needs either of these two Establishment outlets. Their information is available elsewhere.
This is bad news for journalists. We are told that we are dependent on these people. We are told that the Web is destroying journalism. So far, I have not been aware of this. The attrition is continual, yet I notice no decline in the quantity or quality of information. I notice an improvement. Open access is working.
Maybe the doom-sayers are correct. Maybe, someday, there will be a tipping point. The flow of high quality information will decline exponentially. But if it does, there will be profit-seeking sellers of such information.
We are seeing how the mainstream media are dealing with Trump and Clinton. It's kid gloves for the stumbling lady.
The pro-Trump people are seeing just how biased the industry is. For millions of Americans, the reality of media bias is now hitting home. They will not forget or forgive. Mainstream journalism is losing legitimacy. This is good. The less legitimacy these vultures have, the better.
I like the phrase "presstitutes." This well describes the industry as a whole. It is a self-policing, self-screening cartel of liberals and fellow travelers. All cartels break down in the face of price competition. This is what is happening to the cartel of journalism.
The inability of a handful of online publishers to deal with ad-blockers is a reminder: they have no functioning business model. They try one thing after another, but nothing works.
The "business model" of Progressivism is no longer working. The failure of the global warming campaign is obvious. The warmers are unable to get meaningful international controls. This has been their biggest campaign for 25 years. It has failed.
Progressivism is a cartel. It is breaking down. It wins only by default. Its political leaders no longer inspire confidence. Yet the whole movement has been a massive confidence game for over a century: faith in bureaucracy. That faith is waning. So are new revenue sources to support the existing programs, which are all running deficits.
They promised a new world order. It's the same old order: power grabbing and tax grabbing.
Hillary Clinton does not inspire confidence. Yet politics is a confidence game.
When confidence in the Federal Reserve fails, the Progressives' game will be over.
Please share this.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman August 20, 2016
TOPICS: the Olympics
Please share this.
Monday, August 15, 2016
A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, August 6, 2016
TOPICS: the Olympics...
Please share this.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)