Norvir-Busting Marketing Strategies

[Ann]

WSJ Uncovers Abbott's Norvir-Busting Marketing Strategies

A scathing front-page article published in the January 3 Wall Street Journal (WSJ), outlining strategies by Abbott Laboratories to limit access to Norvir® (ritonavir) for the sake of keeping Kaletra® (lopinavir/ritonavir) sales afloat, has once again raised the ire of treatment activists. According to internal documents provided to the paper, reporter and writer John Carreyrou indicates that Abbott considered three aggressive marketing tactics – including the 400% Norvir price increase that went into effect in December 2003 – to deter the use of competitor protease inhibitors (PIs) that required low-dose Norvir for boosting purposes.

Click here to read more...

Nothing like the free-market economy, eh?

Ann

[Boo Radley]

God bwess America and the freedom of capitalism!!

Boo

P.S. "Mr. Devlin ended up supporting the price hike, but Jesus Leal, then vice president of Abbott's virology franchise, preferred the switch to the liquid formulation."

Even Jesus was against us...

[thunter34]

"Even Jesus was against us"...LOL 

(I noticed that , too.  But I was already aware of that from way back when I read all the billboards around the south that said:  AIDS - Judgement has come! )

I am very happy that this item continues to be a thorn in Abbott's side.  I understand the need for proft motive, but this was just a deplorable action on their part, in my opinion.

[poet]

Thanks for pointing this out, Ann.  I read the article in the Journal and was actually surprised, given it's take all most things gay, that they went after the source of their advertising, especially having just downsized the print edition to save 18 million.  No mercy was shown and everyone on Wall Street got a great read. Win

[Ann]

Thanks for pointing this out, Ann.  I read the article in the Journal and was actually surprised, given it's take all most things gay, that they went after the source of their advertising, especially having just downsized the print edition to save 18 million.  No mercy was shown and everyone on Wall Street got a great read. Win

Win, maybe the WSJ realises that hiv/aids is NOT a "gay disease"?

I know many of us like to think that the pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart. After all, the drugs do keep us alive.

However, at the end of the day, it's in their financial interests to keep us alive. Do we need much more proof of their cynicism? We're a meal ticket to them and not much else. I'm grateful the drugs are there, but I'm not grateful they have the ability to put our collective backs up against the wall.

I guess it's true; life ain't fair. That doesn't mean we can't cry out against illegal/immoral marketing practice!

Ann

[alisenjafi]

What is so funny is there is a tiny minority here who don't think that pwa's are the main concern of the pharma mafia. Ironically when ever we bring this up, the rest come to their defense. Yes the drugs keep us alive but do they have to pimp our disease!
In a way I can't fault the pharma mafia as this is what I expect, but those here with HIV  who equate us with Martin Luther.

[Ann]

Hmmm...

Earlier I wrote

I'm not grateful they have the ability to put our collective backs up against the wall.

and it's not so much that they have the ability to put our backs up against the wall, it's that they take advantage of this ability. Abbott has been proven to - how many others are getting away with similar actions that have not yet come to light?

I'm also grateful for investigative journalists and aids activists.


Johnny, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by

but those here with HIV  who equate us with Martin Luther.

Could you clarify, please? Thanks.

Ann

[alisenjafi]

Ann I am in total agreement with you, but as stated when the few of us bring up the shananagans of the pharma mafia and it price fixing there are a few here - no need to point fingers because you all can read their posts-who get all defensive and treat us as heratics for bringing this up.
Like we should be burned at the stake because we bring this up,i.e. the pharmas can do no wrong,  or there is a logical reason ( besides greed) that they do this- such as the cost of  research.

There was a Public tv show where it was admited that something like 80% of pharma profits come from drugs developed as far back as the 80's. not the new drugs  That the CEO's of most pharma today in the US have no medical/pharma background but finanacial backgrounds.

I'm grateful the drugs are there, but I'm not grateful they have the ability to put our collective backs up against the wall.
I'm also grateful for investigative journalists and aids activists.

I couldn't agree more
Johnny

[aztecan]

As someone who has absolutely no faith in the corporate world (it used to be Corporate America, but the rest of the globe is involved now as well) I am not a bit surprised by this news story.

I am glad there are still a few news organizations willing to take on the titans., regardless of their editorial bent or the possible loss in revenue.

While its true I am glad the meds exist, big pharma is again proving the proletartiat is nothing more than a means to an end - to further satiate their avaricious appetite.

A reasonable return on investment is expected and justified. This clearly exceeds that.

Ann, you are absolutely correct, life ain't fair.

HUGS,

Mark

Whose socialistic tendencies are showing again.

[Ann]

Johnny, Thanks for the clarification - I thought that's what you meant by your Martin Luther reference, just wanted to make sure.

Mark, AIDSmeds (as seperate from Poz.com, as it was back then) lost revenue (sponsorship money) from Abbott because they were against Abbott's Norvir price increase in December 2003. I'm not sure if I will be thanked for bringing that up or not, but I do know it happened.

Ann

[alisenjafi]

Hey Ann I thank you- right now on American tv they are talking how this admin has lost billions in fraud and corruption. Corperate America has been busted a few times already. Hopefully this is the end of corperate welfare in America- though I doubt it.
johnny

[aztecan]

Hey Ann,

I didn't know that. That is what we used to call ethics and morals (not to be confused with the right wing bastardization thereof).

Back when I started newswriting, there were still many independent newspapers willing to blow the whistle on big money or big government. Even some of the smaller chain operations did this.

Today, though, from what I've seen, such real news organizations are a rarity, most now cow-tow to the bottom line. The CEOs of most large news conglomerates aren't even newsmen, just number crunchers unworthy of polishing the shoes of a beat reporter.

Ann I am in total agreement with you, but as stated when the few of us bring up the shananagans of the pharma mafia and it price fixing there are a few here - no need to point fingers because you all can read their posts-who get all defensive and treat us as heratics for bringing this up.
Like we should be burned at the stake because we bring this up,i.e. the pharmas can do no wrong,  or there is a logical reason ( besides greed) that they do this- such as the cost of  research.

There was a Public tv show where it was admited that something like 80% of pharma profits come from drugs developed as far back as the 80's. not the new drugs  That the CEO's of most pharma today in the US have no medical/pharma background but finanacial backgrounds.
I couldn't agree more
Johnny

What Johnny said.

HUGS,

Mark

[Ann]

Mark,

Thankfully, investigative journalism is still alive in Britain - although perhaps not to the extent it used to be.

I'm appalled at the difference in journalism in the States now as compared to sixteen years ago when I left - and even back then it was on its way out. It would seem the final nail in the coffin is the current White House administration's stance of "with us or against us". It's shocking. I suppose what's even more shocking is the way "Joe Public" has allowed it to happen without comment. At one time a free press was one of the cornerstones of American society - not any more. Thank goodness for the internet - if someone wants better information than is available in the mainstream media it can be found.

Ann

[Blixer]

As we all probably should already realize, helping people has become a secondary goal for most if not all pharm companies.  Profit is going to be their motive.  I think the tactics that came to light in the article are really sad.  Even though I'm not using the particular drugs mentioned, it makes me feel that they are "using" a potentially deadly disease for their benefit.  I wonder if one of them would feel differently if they were HIV poz?  Anyway, Dr. Whol from another site pointed out that despite how deplorable such tactics might be, we all do still need the pharm companies and we need them to develop/produce new drugs and continue research.  It is a "marriage" I personally may not like when tactics like this come to the surface, but it is one we probably still have to court.  I would hope (but somehow doubt) that the regulatory functions of the government are watching closely enough to keep them reigned in a bit.  Here is a link to Dr. Whol's comments:  

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Meds/Current/Q181030.html

And I applaude the WSJ for bringing this out and aids.meds for taking a stand on the issue earlier.  A fair profit is one thing.  Taking advantage of an entire population afflicted with a chronic illness is another.  Defining where they cross the line becomes the issue.

[allopathicholistic]

I'm grateful the drugs are there, but I'm not grateful they have the ability to put our collective backs up against the wall.

Do we need to turn the tables and put their backs up against the wall?? Should we wait and see what happens? Seems we have the solidarity therefore the ability (how is the question - am I jumping the gun?)

[Iggy]

.

[poet]

Not to dispute anything which anyone has posted so far or what the WSJ has revealed, if I turn things around as a shareholder of pharma. which I have been from time to time, there is incredible pressure on the corporate heads of pharma., of the oil industry, of the car industry, etc. to produce revenue and to share that revenue with shareholders.  Hence the pattern that anytime a pharma. company makes a big mistake, comes up with a drug, the studies for which are halted after millions have been spent, that company gets picked off by another pharma. at a bargain price.  Or think of Wal-Mart's new program for increasing share holder value: don't give anyone a schedule any more.  Have them all on call and bring them in when the computer suggests that the stores are getting busy.  And dismiss them if it slows down on a given day. 

Unfortunately, the basics of investing demand profits.  The lower the expected profits, the lower the share prices go and the smaller the dividend.  So yes, I certainly agree that pharma. can be blamed for all sorts of nasty things.  But we also have to remember that pharma. is an investment like other industries and they all do things like this.  Win

[Life]

Question?  How much can our goverment regulate them??

[Tucsonwoody]

Win brings up some good points and I agree that the goal of a company, if it is to stay in business usually is to make a profit.  However in many cases I think the goal for profits is driven to a large degree by the corporate officers desire to make as much money as possible to receive the most compensation for themselves as for the shareholders. 

For many reasons (and don't get me started) many companies set compensation at obscenely high levels and pay out even when a company doesn't produce for the shareholders.  Just this week the CEO of Homo Depot was canned after he failed to enhance value for the shareholders and yet his parting gifts will amount to over $200 million dollars on top of whatever he made while employed.  Do you think if they only paid him $100 million and gave the other $100 million to people in need that he could scrape by?

And anyone who watches an evening news program, where the majority of viewers are mainly of people my age cannot help but notice that a majority of the ads are for medications.  So night after night we are told to go see our doctor and bug them until they prescribe the latest and greatest drug.  I would suggest that instead of spending millions on those ads that a company could put it to research or even to the bottom line, since most doctors are well aware of what new meds are available thanks to the weekly visits from the drug reps.

Many of you may have seen the ads for the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (https://www.pparx.org/Intro.php) which provides meds at low or no cost to people who qualify because for whatever reason they don't have medical insurance coverage.  A noble goal, supported by some not for profit agencies AND 48 pharmaceutical companies.  While I am glad for the people who are getting their meds (and I may join them one day soon) to me this is more proof that there is something very wrong with how the drug companies do business.

In partial answer to Eric's question about how much can our government regulate them...the answer in my opinion is not enough...at least right now.  Thanks to laws in other countries, drugs are sold there for less then then are here, which is why many people find it cheaper to buy from Canada for instance then the local drug store and why the pharmas with help from our government have tried to prevent it.  So in away, what we and our insurance companies and government pay for drugs is subsidising the lower cost of drugs sold to other countries, right?

Okay - I am starting to rant and have climbed too high on my soapbox, but anytime you want to raise your blood pressure, do a Google search for drug company profits and read just a few of the links, it will make the original topic of this thread (sorry for hijacking) look like nothing compared to some of the other tactics being used.

Now I wish I could have a beer or a good smoke right now...but those days are over...maybe I'll go take my Atripla with a stick of butter and see if that helps me feel better And tomorrow I'll go buy some stock in a drug company I guess.

Kevin

[Boo Radley]

I suppose what's even more shocking is the way "Joe Public" has allowed it to happen without comment. At one time a free press was one of the cornerstones of American society - not any more.

Oh, Ann, you simply don't understand the complexities of modern day life!  In order to be free we must lose some of our freedom.  Great men like Rupert Murdoch benignly oversee the independent operations of his 200 or so magazines and newspapers around the world. 

War is good.  Peace causes unemployment.  When big pharma makes a killing that's good for all the little people who have stock in big pharma (and you know how many hands you need to count them on!).

How dare you question the USA, you radical left expatriate!

In jingoistic ire,

Boo

[Bartro]

Just a few observations.

While vacationing in Las Vegas a few years ago I saw a most extravagant poolside affair being set up by dozens of hotel staff.  I asked one of them what was going on.  He said the huge platters of lobster tail, shrimp, caviar and dozens of other sumptuous looking dishes were for a drug rep meeting.

A former physician of mine who was run out of his corporate owned clinic for spending too much time with his patients told me he got frequent flier points for prescribing certain prescriptions.  He also told me that the drug reps would provide televisions for the waiting rooms and other equipment in return for favorable treatment of their products.

Next time you're in the doctors office look around.  You'll see all kinds of things provided by the drug companies with their names on them.  Pens, clip boards, coffee mugs etc..

Did you ever smell food while at the doctors office?  Often drug reps will "buy lunch" for the office staff if he can get in to give his sales pitch to the doctor(s).  These meals are usually catered affairs.

I don't think the drug companies are hard up for cash.  I bet all these little "perks" add up to quite a hefty price tag. 

[Blixer]

Question?  How much can our goverment regulate them??

The article mentioned the fact that Abbott had taken some development or research money from the government in developing Norvir.  Hence, there is some sort of trigger in the regulations that would allow the government to open up Norvir to generic manufacturers before the 15 year patent is up.  The article seemed to suggest that such an option had been considered but I guess the tactics of the company were not grevious enough to merit any type of government interference.

As has been mentioned, it does make you wonder what other "internal issues" other pharma companies have that impact not just the HIV medications but other medications as well.

[Eldon]

Hey Ann,

Thanks for bringing this up. This is one of the many issues that needs to be addressed ASAP. I agree with Alex, it is backs against the wall. The have forgotten their very purpose in order to be in existence. They need to change their thinking to lives instead of $$$.

"What can I notice right now that makes me smile?"

[jack]

I read the WSJ  article last week.  It is the best paper in the US, even though except for the editorial page it is as left wing as any paper in the country.
Has anyone here ever done the full does of Norvir for any amount of time? Well, I have and let me tell you it is a fucking gut killer. My stomach was in a meat grinder for months and I had diahrea 24/7. I became so sick I actually contemplated suicide. In addition to that fun the lipodystrophy was horrible. Oh,that was the wonderfully tasting liquid norvir. Thank God, I became resistant to it quickly.
In contrast I did Kaletra for almost a year and had very few sides and much better results. Unfortunately I became resistant to it also.
I am taking a small dose of norvir now in my regimen. The small dose doesnt seem to have bad sides but it is only used as a kicker for the main drug prezista.

[bocker3]

The state of Health care in the US is quite a mess as we all know.  Big Pharma and their obscene profits are but one area where it is evident.  Where does fault belong??  Probably at everyone's feet, but here are what I see as the 2 biggest problems in the US:

1.  We all want the absolute latest and greatest in care.  We want it now AND we want someone else to pay for it.  And by "someone else" we don't REALLY mean the government, because that would raise our taxes and we can't have that.  "Someone else" is really "someone who is not me".  OK -- I know this doesn't match up with everyone, and probably doesn't hit most of the folks reading these forums (including myself), but it DOES match most of the population -- those who do not have the high medical costs that we (and others) are faced with.  As an example of where the population "wastes" medical resources that they aren't paying for -- just witness some of the WW and the never ending testing they do to "prove" what they are sure they know -- that they have HIV, despite overwhelming evidence that they are negative.  All this testing costs money and going overboard is nuts (and expensive).  Plus -- don't even get me started with all the unnecessary testing that goes on simply to avoid lawsuits.

2.  The US Government has decided that it makes sense to let "the market" deal with the costs of health care - including the delivery and ongoing R&D.  The say their appalled by the costs, but do little to help -- outside of limiting what they pay for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.  Additionally, the govt allows drug patents to run WAY TOO LONG and then permit all kinds of stalling techniques to be used by the Pharma companies to squeeze out a little more time of exclusivity (i.e. higher prices).

So, there is plenty of blame for big Pharma, but it needs to be spread much wider.

Please make sure you understand my points before any railing against me.  I am in agreement that Pharma needs to try and act more responsibly to the patients they serve.  It isn't easy to balance that with their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, but just because something isn't easy, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Mike

[Iggy]

.

[ACinKC]

Edited for those of you with dial up.