The Barbarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reaction score
- 277
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The only problems that Pharma ran into was that they wanted to increase profit margins. They chose not to make the drug back in 2007 despite encouragement from the FDA.
I'd like to know the details about why they can't simply use another propellent. Did you have any specifics regarding their "problems"?And back in 2008 it was thought that an epinephrine inhaler using a non-CFC propellant could be developed before 2012. But they've run into problems. That turned out not to be the case and now it is not expected to be on the market by then.
It appears that to some, including the OP, the only detail of importance is that this is occurring on Obama's watch . . . .I'd like to know the details about why they can't simply use another propellent. Did you have any specifics regarding their "problems"?
I'm of the camp that big Pharm simply wants to get more cash by forcing consumers to use their more expensive drugs.
If you're unaware of the multi-decade controversy over CFC's, then I agree -- WTF?Wait, wtf? environmental impact? What a load of horse ****.
Apparently they've developed one with another propellant, it just took them longer than expected. The problem is getting the Obama FDA to approve it.I'd like to know the details about why they can't simply use another propellent. Did you have any specifics regarding their "problems"?
Armstrong Pharmaceuticals is not "big Pharm" by any stretch of the term. They are small fry in a sea of great white sharks.I'm of the camp that big Pharm simply wants to get more cash by forcing consumers to use their more expensive drugs.
It appears that to some, including the OP, the only detail of importance is that this is occurring on Obama's watch . . . .
If you're unaware of the multi-decade controversy over CFC's, then I agree -- WTF?
I'm aware, I'm also aware that medical use is exempt. This has nothing to do with the environment, and everything about money, and increased intrusiveness by government agencies. If CFC is really the issue, why not use an alternative propellant (even though it is exempt), instead of limiting patients choices to expensive, prescription only medications?If you're unaware of the multi-decade controversy over CFC's, then I agree -- WTF?
May be wrong, but think the item described is Spiriva. Recommended dosage is once daily.He prescribed one brand of inhaler, whose name I can't think of but it was powder and was contained inside a bullet shaped tube. It was an inhalant, but not the typical inhaler we have seen.
May be wrong, but think the item described is Spiriva. Recommended dosage is once daily.
The story is even more complicated that it looks at first glance. I'm starting to think this issue is more about incompetence rather than malice.
1) The FDA started its phaseout process in 2006. It was determined that there were no technical barriers to producing a HFA epinephrine replacement.
2) Pharma company Wyeth claimed they couldn't make a replacement for technical reasons.
3) The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program says that epinephrine sucks and everyone should switch to albuterol inhalers for health reasons anyway.
4) Armstrong pharmaceuticals comes in and decides to make the HFA replacement starting in 2009.
4) The FDA originally planned for 2011 end date for the CFC version, but Armstrong asks it to be pushed to 2012, claiming that they will have a replacement in early 2011.
5) According to government records, Armstrong is currently doing clinical trials of the drug at the moment.
6) In a press release, Armstrong says the drug will not be released until after the ban. They encourage customers to stockpile current models until they can get their new drug on the market.
No, it wasn't Spiriva, but it was set up, so that you never knew quite how many puffs you had left. You could shake it, and hear the powder within it and think you had more left, but you actually didn't. With Symbicort, you have an indicator on it, but you can't quite hear anything, whereas with Albuterol, you could hear it inside the tube if you shook the inhaler.
I might have an old container of that stuff. I will get back with you on what it was called.
That doesn't even include the doctor visit.In this area,
Albuterol=$48.69
Advair=$321.69
Spiriva=$270.69
Prices may vary according to area.
That doesn't even include the doctor visit.
And, you can't buy several of those at a time.
Yes I do. But I don't see the relevance of your question. Please elaborate.Do you not have health care insurance?
Yes I do. But I don't see the relevance of your question. Please elaborate.
Well, most health insurance plans include either free primary care visits or relatively modest copays, and also include either free or discounted Rx, so I think it's perfectly relevant to question of your cost burden. It may be that the insurance-covered prescription inhalers end up being cheaper than the out-of-pocket, over-the-counter inhalers. At least it would be for me.
Don't you dare utter the name of Ronald Reagan, you Reagan hater.It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.
From wikipedia...
"...Letter from Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Senate:
"THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release December 21, 1987
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.
The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.
In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
Ronald Reagan The White House December 21, 1987" "
Are you not inhaling the propellant as well?
A url for the actual text of "The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer", not a condensed version in a newspaper or magazine article. One will noticed a "one liner" ---> 3. Aerosol products, except medical aerosols.
http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf
In this area,
Albuterol=$48.69
Advair=$321.69
Spiriva=$270.69
Prices may vary according to area.
There are a few exceptions for "essential uses", where no acceptable substitutes have been found (for example, in the metered dose inhalers commonly used to treat asthma and other respiratory problems[5])
Yes, like nobody is actually having to pay the rest. As long as you don't have to pay it eh?
Oh I'm paying for it, in the form of ridiculous insurance premiums. And the insurance company is paying less than I would if I paid it on my own, as they have deals with the pharma companies.
I'd also add that you generally have to see a doc to get the original prescription, but he or she should specify that the prescription can be refilled x number of times, and they should renew it over the phone after that. If your doctor is making you come in for an appointment each time you need a refill then you need to find another doctor.
As they say there is no such thing as a free lunch.Oh I'm paying for it, in the form of ridiculous insurance premiums. And the insurance company is paying less than I would if I paid it on my own, as they have deals with the pharma companies.
I'd also add that you generally have to see a doc to get the original prescription, but he or she should specify that the prescription can be refilled x number of times, and they should renew it over the phone after that. If your doctor is making you come in for an appointment each time you need a refill then you need to find another doctor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?