Comments on: AIDS Group Bans Merck Sales Reps Over Pricing

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:16:30 +0000

I’m willing to cut Merck some slack here on historical grounds. Merck was one of the pioneers in protease inhibitor therapy, with Crixivan. With respect to pricing, Crixivan was priced about 20% LOWER than other available PI’s at the time. Merck was one of the few companies to work with groups such as ACT-UP in expanding access to HIV clinical trials and affordable treatment.

Just some perspective.

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:16:26 +0000

Just some perspective.

By: M. Black

M. Black — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:28:53 +0000

“We’re in the business of saving lives”.

And killing wallets.

By: Condor

Condor — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:33:44 +0000

This is a difficult question, I think, from an ethical conduct of business perspective. That is — I think Merck should be handsomely rewarded for its innovations, however. . . when is the thus far amassed profit “enough, already” — and consequently, the cry of “price-gouging” arises, especially with human lives, hanging in the balance?

Of course, for those who can afford these extremely high prices, Isentress has become part of a very promising first-line AIDS treatment approach.

However, now that Isentress is FDA-approved as a “first line” rather than just a “salvage” therapy (thus greatly increasing volumes of sales), shouldn’t New Merck lower selling prices, given that people are literally dying without the drug — and most patients without Cadillac insurance plans cannot afford the current co-pays? I tend to think so. I’ve more on that notion, at mine.

As ever, great stuff, Ed!

Namaste