Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
The guy is what can be best called a "profiteer" as in someone who is intentionally driving the price up to make an "unfair or excessive profit."
He believes that saving someone's life should cost "at a minimum $100,000" and the drug as previously sold was doing it for about $1000.00. So, he bought an existing "Patent Process" and jacked up the prices.
I'm all for capitalism. Very Pro-Capitalism. Make your money, make a profit. Don't bleed people to do it. That's the line, and this guy crossed it.
Now, the problem we run into is that there are LOTS of these type drugs that were developed in the 50s-70s, and they are dirt cheap to make if you have the production capability. Not many companies make them, because they're dirt cheap to make, and hence slim profits, and why compete and drive the profits down. So what you do is you buy up the competitors (licenses) and you become a monopoly. Now you are the only one with the capability of making it.
This created a "barrier of entry" even though the patent is expired on the drug itself (not the process), which means that even if someone else copies the drug, and tries to compete at the new higher price, this yahoo, can tank the market and effectively kill his competition.
Example: Pill costs $20.00. 5 companies on market that make it. Buy all patent processes. Raise price to $1000.00. New company comes in, after R&D to develop new process, they have to market pill at $50.00+ to make money. First company just drops price back to original $20.00 if second company even attempts to sell it. Second company is effectively barred from entry. We see it a lot with telecommunication companies as well.
So what's the cure? US Government has to step in. I hate that answer. But this is where we need a "Referee" to call foul.
An interesting paper on the arguments over capitalism over time is here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
Capitalism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The emergence of capitalism is often mistakenly linked to a Puritan work ethic. German sociologist Max Weber, writing in 1903, stated that the catalyst for capitalism was in seventeenth-century England, where members of a religious sect, the Puritans, under the sway of John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, channeled their energies into hard work, reinvestment, and modest living, and then carried these attitudes to New England. Weber’s...
I disagree. Without competition there is no free market. That the government does this as well is not capitalism either - quite the reverse is true.
That there can be high barriers to entry in a market is not necessarily a refutation of competition in a free market - it may simply reflect the fact that someone has found a way to drive the prices lower than others can compete with. Where it is a problem is in the case that government regulation artificially limits competition.
Most of us aren't buying this drug. Those who can't afford it won't buy it. This person is betting he has a large enough market of people who view it as a necessity (and hence are willing to pay for it) AND can afford it compared to the much lower price point model that previously existed. Those are competing forces within capitalism, which are neither good nor bad. The fact that it is medicine, and cannot be viewed as a luxury is what changes the ethics of this situation.
Monopolies themselves are still tools, and as tools have neutral ethics by default. It's the person that exploits them that makes them good or bad.
Mostly I think this guy just needs to be made an example of so other young, brash sociopaths think twice about trying something like it.
As Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS pointed out above, he just made it completely impractical to compete against him.
FDA should be able to determine the costs associated with those activities and ensure they are recovered during the seven years they hold exclusive patent rights or have some metric that says how much the taxpayer needs to kick in.
http://www.phrma.org/media-releases/phrma-member-companies-invested-512-billion-in-rd-in-2014 or this?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/
PhRMA Member Companies Invested $51.2 Billion in R&D in 2014 | PhRMA
PhRMA member companies invested an estimated $51.2 billion last year in the research and development (R&D) of new innovative treatments and cures. The figure represents the majority of all biopharmaceutical R&D spending – both public and private – in the United States.
Also there is a reason price gouging laws are in place and if he hadn't changed the price back he would have eventually gone to prison. He still may.
There doesn't appear to be any LEGAL reason why someone shouldn't charge whatever they feel like when they are selling something that they own legally.
After all, the people who would have some use for this medication aren't being FORCED to purchase it - they are perfectly free to forego the drug if they don't feel that the price is worth the potential benefit. Face it, GM is perfectly free to charge $1,000,000 per car and you can either buy one or not as you feel inclined and this situation isn't any different - right?
Secondly, I don't see this as a capitalism fail...I see it as a greedy individual exploiting a popular item vs gradually increasing cost to be competitive. Greedy individuals will always exploit loopholes, cut corners and circumvent standards - regardless of what regulations or sanctions are in place.
As far as some other poster's comment that "The Affordable Healthcare Act strikes again!" is concerned, this doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the ACA and they probably knew that but couldn't resist blaming President Obama for everything from the heartbreak of psoriasis to the heat death of the universe.
I'm not in the medical/pharmaceutical field - but in my current position, I'm slightly involved in IR&D proposals and I have a basic (very basic) understanding of IR&D. I do know that developing of medications as the aforementioned pill isn't very profitable, if at all. It takes years to go from IR&D to FDA approval, which by that point, the manufacturer is already millions (sometimes 100s of millions) in the hole. Which leads to ridiculous pricing for new drugs hitting the market. That doesn't validate this guy's ludicrous price gouging on this specific pill however (I believe the pill has been around since 1953?), since I'm sure it's had plenty of decades to recoup the cost of research/development.
In short - this guy is a jerk and only cares about money in his pocket.


Medicine
Capital Markets
Economics
