Republican Administration Maintains Exclusivity Stance in GLP-1 (Tirzepatide) Compounding Dispute

[nonyabizznez]

Lilly expanding their cash for vials program does provide an off ramp for many that were paying for compound. It is only about $100-$200 more per month than compound if on a dose

 

[AndyPanda]

Anyone else having trouble keeping their mouth shut? I am. I think it was Shakespeare who said something like “Discretion is the greater part of valor”

 

[raw_oyster_eater]

i don't know why a couple more weight loss drugs can't be expedited. so many in these damn trials that will take forever. maybe they can help with that.

 

[AndyPanda]

i don't know why a couple more weight loss drugs can't be expedited. so many in these damn trials that will take forever. maybe they can help with that.

I don’t know how something can be better than what’s already here. It seems so amazing to me as is. Unless it’s a competitor of NN or EL, there is no benefit to something else coming out. The smart financial play is to wait until the patent expires.

 

[raw_oyster_eater]

there's like 30 in development/testing. lets push some of them out.

 

[keangkong]

I’m locking this thread the moment it gets even a little bit into partisan politics.

I give it 2 hours but prove me wrong.

We proved you wrong. Although we all know you’ll have to lock the thread at some point, we far exceeded your prediction.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

We proved you wrong. Although we all know you’ll have to lock the thread at some point, we far exceeded your prediction.

It makes my heart happy.

 

[ktg123]

there's like 30 in development/testing. lets push some of them out.

With patents not expiring for many more years, competition is our best bet. If people had an option between 3 or 4 drugs from different companies that acted just like Tirz, EL wouldn't have a cornered market and wouldn't get away with highway robbery for long.

Although from what I hear, Tirz in other countries is WAYYY cheaper. The goverment could use that, I'd think, to force EL to drop the price.

 

[hexagonal]

With patents not expiring for many more years, competition is our best bet. If people had an option between 3 or 4 drugs from different companies that acted just like Tirz, EL wouldn't have a cornered market and wouldn't get away with highway robbery for long.

Although from what I hear, Tirz in other countries is WAYYY cheaper. The goverment could use that, I'd think, to force EL to drop the price.

It is cheaper in most countries because the government negotiates drug prices.

In the US this is only doable for a subset of drugs under medicare. If you want this to be a thing in general, call your representative and ask for it.

 

[AndyPanda]

It is cheaper in most countries because the government negotiates drug prices.

In the US this is only doable for a subset of drugs under medicare. If you want this to be a thing in general, call your representative and ask for it.

Which is frustrating because all the drug companies receive government money for research.

 

[keangkong]

Which is frustrating because all the drug companies receive government money for research.

Yes, but that is factored into the price. For those criticizing Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, I'll quote from Philipson, et al., Policy Brief: Government Price Controls on Obesity Drugs (2025) [https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voice...ief-Price-Controls-on-Obesity-Drugs-Final.pdf]. I will note that Eli Lilly did contribute money to producing the Policy Brief, nontheless I believe most of what it advocates.

"[A]dopting government-controlled pricing in the US would harm American patients far more than similar policies impact patients in other countries. Many foreign countries do not have an innovation access tradeoff in setting price controls, as innovation is driven by global sales which a small country does not affect much. In contrast, the US, as a large and wealthy country, contributes 64-78% of global earnings from drug development, despite being about 25% of world GDP (Goldman & Lakdawalla, 2018; Kose et al., 2017). Currently, the US benefits from high demand for pharmaceuticals, which enables quicker access to new treatments as well as a wider variety of options for patients. A reduction in US earnings, such as when adopting foreign price controls, would have significant consequences including a decline in total pharmaceutical innovation. This could ultimately result in dramatically diminished benefit for US patients, who would face limited access to cutting-edge treatments and fewer options overall." (Emphasis added.)

My personal belief is that the US should engage in negotiations with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk about lowering the prices of these drugs and may have to threaten to change patent laws in doing so. The ultimate goal would to make sure that these companies make large amounts of money but that the money goes a long way. For instance, the price might be lowered to $225 for four weeks of these drugs, but insurance companies would be required to cover them for pretty much everyone who will derive significant benefit from the drugs. The lower prices paid but greater access to these drugs should reduce other health care expenditures and comes closer to making these drugs cost effective. The US government could go farther and not allow these companies to make a killing, like they're doing now. But it's good that they're making a killing. Right now, drug companies are racing like crazy to work on these types of drugs. Most of the drugs they're working either won't be approved by the FDA or, if approved, won't recoup enough money to become cost effective. The drug companies are gambling that a drug will be cost effective. However, if the company knows that even its successful drugs will only generate what government bureaucrats determine to be a "reasonable return," then it becomes far less appealing to invest in drugs that, for the most part, won't be approved. For those for whom tirzepatide works great, that won't hurt you. Yet far too many people receive inadequate results from these drugs. Many people stop taking them due to side effects. Many people hate the idea of injecting themselves. Also, if the government invalidates the patents or acts too roughly in forcing cost reductions, that makes companies less willing to invest in drugs. I understand the argument that the US shouldn't pay more than the rest of the world. However, considering that the 64-78% of global earnings for drug development comes from the US, a large decrease in what the US pays will lead to the drug companies spending far less overall. That will negatively affect the US and the rest of the world.

I'm being at least borderline hypocritical here: I speak of the virtues of capitalism and patents. Yet I go ahead and buy on the grey market. I abide by the philosophy that one can't be hypocritical in one acknowledges one's own deviation from one's stated beliefs. Chalk that up to me being self-centered. However, investors too are self-centered. They invest because they want to make money. I'm not going to invest in a company that's working on a drug that may benefit million or could result in huge losses unless I expect that any successes may pay handsomely.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

"[A]dopting government-controlled pricing in the US would harm American patients far more than similar policies impact patients in other countries. Many foreign countries do not have an innovation access tradeoff in setting price controls, as innovation is driven by global sales which a small country does not affect much. In contrast, the US, as a large and wealthy country, contributes 64-78% of global earnings from drug development, despite being about 25% of world GDP (Goldman & Lakdawalla, 2018; Kose et al., 2017). Currently, the US benefits from high demand for pharmaceuticals, which enables quicker access to new treatments as well as a wider variety of options for patients. A reduction in US earnings, such as when adopting foreign price controls, would have significant consequences including a decline in total pharmaceutical innovation. This could ultimately result in dramatically diminished benefit for US patients, who would face limited access to cutting-edge treatments and fewer options overall." (Emphasis added.)

no shit Sherlock (no you kong, but the author). Yeah if drug companies were restricted from charging the US dramatically more than every other wealthy country then they would have less money to play with. I don’t think that’s an argument for the status quo being the superior option. By that logic maybe there should be rules to charge double current prices in the US market in order to speed up innovation. That article is making a point that is myopic to a point of absurdity.

 

[chmuse]

Yes, but that is factored into the price. For those criticizing Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, I'll quote from Philipson, et al., Policy Brief: Government Price Controls on Obesity Drugs (2025) [ https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voice...ief-Price-Controls-on-Obesity-Drugs-Final.pdf ]. I will note that Eli Lilly did contribute money to producing the Policy Brief, nontheless I believe most of what it advocates.

"[A]dopting government-controlled pricing in the US would harm American patients far more than similar policies impact patients in other countries. Many foreign countries do not have an innovation access tradeoff in setting price controls, as innovation is driven by global sales which a small country does not affect much. In contrast, the US, as a large and wealthy country, contributes 64-78% of global earnings from drug development, despite being about 25% of world GDP (Goldman & Lakdawalla, 2018; Kose et al., 2017). Currently, the US benefits from high demand for pharmaceuticals, which enables quicker access to new treatments as well as a wider variety of options for patients. A reduction in US earnings, such as when adopting foreign price controls, would have significant consequences including a decline in total pharmaceutical innovation. This could ultimately result in dramatically diminished benefit for US patients, who would face limited access to cutting-edge treatments and fewer options overall." (Emphasis added.)

My personal belief is that the US should engage in negotiations with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk about lowering the prices of these drugs and may have to threaten to change patent laws in doing so. The ultimate goal would to make sure that these companies make large amounts of money but that the money goes a long way. For instance, the price might be lowered to $225 for four weeks of these drugs, but insurance companies would be required to cover them for pretty much everyone who will derive significant benefit from the drugs. The lower prices paid but greater access to these drugs should reduce other health care expenditures and comes closer to making these drugs cost effective. The US government could go farther and not allow these companies to make a killing, like they're doing now. But it's good that they're making a killing. Right now, drug companies are racing like crazy to work on these types of drugs. Most of the drugs they're working either won't be approved by the FDA or, if approved, won't recoup enough money to become cost effective. The drug companies are gambling that a drug will be cost effective. However, if the company knows that even its successful drugs will only generate what government bureaucrats determine to be a "reasonable return," then it becomes far less appealing to invest in drugs that, for the most part, won't be approved. For those for whom tirzepatide works great, that won't hurt you. Yet far too many people receive inadequate results from these drugs. Many people stop taking them due to side effects. Many people hate the idea of injecting themselves. Also, if the government invalidates the patents or acts too roughly in forcing cost reductions, that makes companies less willing to invest in drugs. I understand the argument that the US shouldn't pay more than the rest of the world. However, considering that the 64-78% of global earnings for drug development comes from the US, a large decrease in what the US pays will lead to the drug companies spending far less overall. That will negatively affect the US and the rest of the world.

I'm being at least borderline hypocritical here: I speak of the virtues of capitalism and patents. Yet I go ahead and buy on the grey market. I abide by the philosophy that one can't be hypocritical in one acknowledges one's own deviation from one's stated beliefs. Chalk that up to me being self-centered. However, investors too are self-centered. They invest because they want to make money. I'm not going to invest in a company that's working on a drug that may benefit million or could result in huge losses unless I expect that any successes may pay handsomely.

That really is the conundrum though; they aren't making these medications for altruistic reasons. They're making them to make money. It's why so many potential medications get dropped in research- they simply aren't profitable.

I'm sure there are ways around that; I'm sure there's a brilliant solution that makes everyone happy. Unfortunately, none of us are smart enough or well connected enough to enact change on the pharmaceutical industry. All we can do is grumble and buy grey and be glad we've got enough of a brain to do math and (hopefully) not kill ourselves.

It makes sense for them to protect their investment. It also makes sense for us to call them greedy motherfuckers holding our health over our heads to squeeze out our capital.

Edit: Bee I'm calling EL and NN motherfuckers, not politicians. Don't ban me.

 

[keangkong]

no shit Sherlock (no you kong, but the author). Yeah if drug companies were restricted from charging the US dramatically more than every other wealthy country then they would have less money to play with. I don’t think that’s an argument for the status quo being the superior option. By that logic maybe there should be rules to charge double current prices in the US market in order to speed up innovation. It’s absurd.

I thought it was of a bit of a tough sell to basically say nothing should be changed about the status quo, which has the US paying much more. After I found out that Eli Lilly contributed money, that also turned me off somewhat. However, the fact that the majority of drug profits come from the US does point to the likelihood that reducing how much we pay will greatly reduce drug innovation. I benefit greatly from my GLP-1 drug, Adderall XR (generic), my two antidepressants, Synthroid (without which I would die), and to a lesser extent, from my blood pressure and statin drugs. Most of these drugs are now generic. But they were developed at great cost. I want future Americans to receive the benefits of new drugs that might not come about if we're too cheap.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

I thought it was of a bit of a tough sell to basically say nothing should be changed about the status quo, which has the US paying much more. After I found out that Eli Lilly contributed money, that also turned me off somewhat. However, the fact that the majority of drug profits come from the US does point to the likelihood that reducing how much we pay will greatly reduce drug innovation. I benefit greatly from my GLP-1 drug, Adderall XR (generic), my two antidepressants, Synthroid (without which I would die), and to a lesser extent, from my blood pressure and statin drugs. Most of these drugs are now generic. But they were developed at great cost. I want future Americans to receive the benefits of new drugs that might not come about if we're too cheap.

Maybe they can reallocate some of their lobbyist-written policy brief budget to R&D to make up some of the revenue lost to the price controls that every other functioning democracy has.

 

[Morbius]

I'm being at least borderline hypocritical here: I speak of the virtues of capitalism and patents. Yet I go ahead and buy on the grey market.

IMHO we're all still participating in the same capitalist system. By going grey we are saying, "that official product is too expensive." Either way, the big guys lose the sale. Hopefully, the total amount of non-buyers causes price corrections and competition.

We're all in the system, unless we homestead and live off the land.

I'm sure many of us here would be OK paying somewhat more than grey prices to be 100% legit. But at current pricing, it's GLP-1 or rent for a lot of people, meaning it's no choice at all. (Plus, you need a compliant medical care team, which is its own issue.)

Piracy (the closest analogy, I guess) has always existed where there are problems of pricing, supply, or convenience.

When the product is literally life-changing, or even life- saving , there will be more pirates.

I don't feel good about being a Peptide Pirate...

But I don't feel bad about it, either.

 

[AndyPanda]

Yes, but that is factored into the price. For those criticizing Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, I'll quote from Philipson, et al., Policy Brief: Government Price Controls on Obesity Drugs (2025) [ https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voice...ief-Price-Controls-on-Obesity-Drugs-Final.pdf ]. I will note that Eli Lilly did contribute money to producing the Policy Brief, nontheless I believe most of what it advocates.

"[A]dopting government-controlled pricing in the US would harm American patients far more than similar policies impact patients in other countries. Many foreign countries do not have an innovation access tradeoff in setting price controls, as innovation is driven by global sales which a small country does not affect much. In contrast, the US, as a large and wealthy country, contributes 64-78% of global earnings from drug development, despite being about 25% of world GDP (Goldman & Lakdawalla, 2018; Kose et al., 2017). Currently, the US benefits from high demand for pharmaceuticals, which enables quicker access to new treatments as well as a wider variety of options for patients. A reduction in US earnings, such as when adopting foreign price controls, would have significant consequences including a decline in total pharmaceutical innovation. This could ultimately result in dramatically diminished benefit for US patients, who would face limited access to cutting-edge treatments and fewer options overall." (Emphasis added.)

My personal belief is that the US should engage in negotiations with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk about lowering the prices of these drugs and may have to threaten to change patent laws in doing so. The ultimate goal would to make sure that these companies make large amounts of money but that the money goes a long way. For instance, the price might be lowered to $225 for four weeks of these drugs, but insurance companies would be required to cover them for pretty much everyone who will derive significant benefit from the drugs. The lower prices paid but greater access to these drugs should reduce other health care expenditures and comes closer to making these drugs cost effective. The US government could go farther and not allow these companies to make a killing, like they're doing now. But it's good that they're making a killing. Right now, drug companies are racing like crazy to work on these types of drugs. Most of the drugs they're working either won't be approved by the FDA or, if approved, won't recoup enough money to become cost effective. The drug companies are gambling that a drug will be cost effective. However, if the company knows that even its successful drugs will only generate what government bureaucrats determine to be a "reasonable return," then it becomes far less appealing to invest in drugs that, for the most part, won't be approved. For those for whom tirzepatide works great, that won't hurt you. Yet far too many people receive inadequate results from these drugs. Many people stop taking them due to side effects. Many people hate the idea of injecting themselves. Also, if the government invalidates the patents or acts too roughly in forcing cost reductions, that makes companies less willing to invest in drugs. I understand the argument that the US shouldn't pay more than the rest of the world. However, considering that the 64-78% of global earnings for drug development comes from the US, a large decrease in what the US pays will lead to the drug companies spending far less overall. That will negatively affect the US and the rest of the world.

I'm being at least borderline hypocritical here: I speak of the virtues of capitalism and patents. Yet I go ahead and buy on the grey market. I abide by the philosophy that one can't be hypocritical in one acknowledges one's own deviation from one's stated beliefs. Chalk that up to me being self-centered. However, investors too are self-centered. They invest because they want to make money. I'm not going to invest in a company that's working on a drug that may benefit million or could result in huge losses unless I expect that any successes may pay handsomely.

I know it says more, but all I see is another example of the US subsidizing other parts of the world.

 

[keangkong]

I'm sure there are ways around that; I'm sure there's a brilliant solution that makes everyone happy.

Edit: Bee I'm calling EL and NN motherfuckers, not politicians. Don't ban me.

There may be brilliant solutions, but even brilliant solutions won't make everyone happy.

I'm glad that we have a tolerant moderator. Usually a thread ban is all that a person gets.

 

[keangkong]

I know it says more, but all I see is another example of the US subsidizing other parts of the world.

It says more, but it definitely says the that the US spends far more than all the other countries in the world for drugs and that without US spending, the rest of the world wouldn't get them. But then again we wouldn't get many of them.

 

[chmuse]

There may be brilliant solutions, but even brilliant solutions won't make everyone happy.

I'm glad that we have a tolerant moderator. Usually a thread ban is all that a person gets.

It says more, but it definitely says the that the US spends far more than all the other countries in the world for drugs and that without US spending, the rest of the world wouldn't get them. But then again we wouldn't get many of them.

I typed up an entire response to these, but then realized I don't want to spark the conversation that makes Bee shut this down.

So: True, and true. I'm being idealistic.