Shortages at Washington-area hospital: Children are Dying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You are missing the point. In this case, the government needs to subsidize the manufacturing of these nutrients. And we need to pay taxes to make that possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

What would convince you that it's a real problem?

Also, the FDA has multiple purposes, none of which are to encourage manufacturing. What you call "putting up barriers that increase manufacturing costs", I call "fulfilling their statutory mission to ensure the safety of drugs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You have to be kidding me.

[Anonymous]

Thanks 7:28 for the link. Does anyone know who/which groups might be advocating on something like this? Not much point just being outraged on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You are missing the point. In this case, the government needs to subsidize the manufacturing of these nutrients. And we need to pay taxes to make that possible.

Okay, and then you will have others, including DCUM readers, screaming "the government should not be in the business of manufacturing and subsidizing the drug industry. the government should allow free enterprise to prevail".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This also reminds me of how my progesterone injections during my first pregnancy were available through a compounding pharmacy and were pretty affordable, and then they suddenly became the name brand drug "Makena" and became available only through one company and hugely expensive. I think there was an outcry about it and maybe things have changed since I last looked into it, but the point is - it's just a race for profits no matter what for these drug companies. Here's a link to an article about the controvery if anyone is curious:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41994697/ns/health-pregnancy/t/premature-labor-drug-spikes/

The company that produced Makena filed for bankruptcy and the FDA said it will not go after compounding pharmacies who do the p17 injections. It isn't as simple as a company making profits at the expense of women with pregnancy complications, though. Before Makena, there were no real randomized studies to show that p17 was beneficial. It was just used off label. So, there will likely be reduced innovatins in this space now that the value of Makena's research isn't economically protected. This is a complicated issue with no easy solutions. Of course you want women to have access to cheap, efficient drugs that help, but there needs to be a way to incentive companies to innovate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also reminds me of how my progesterone injections during my first pregnancy were available through a compounding pharmacy and were pretty affordable, and then they suddenly became the name brand drug "Makena" and became available only through one company and hugely expensive. I think there was an outcry about it and maybe things have changed since I last looked into it, but the point is - it's just a race for profits no matter what for these drug companies. Here's a link to an article about the controvery if anyone is curious:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41994697/ns/health-pregnancy/t/premature-labor-drug-spikes/

The company that produced Makena filed for bankruptcy and the FDA said it will not go after compounding pharmacies who do the p17 injections. It isn't as simple as a company making profits at the expense of women with pregnancy complications, though. Before Makena, there were no real randomized studies to show that p17 was beneficial. It was just used off label. So, there will likely be reduced innovatins in this space now that the value of Makena's research isn't economically protected. This is a complicated issue with no easy solutions. Of course you want women to have access to cheap, efficient drugs that help, but there needs to be a way to incentive companies to innovate.

*innovations* and *incentivize*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You are missing the point. In this case, the government needs to subsidize the manufacturing of these nutrients. And we need to pay taxes to make that possible.

Okay, and then you will have others, including DCUM readers, screaming "the government should not be in the business of manufacturing and subsidizing the drug industry. the government should allow free enterprise to prevail".

So let them scream. If you don't think this is a problem, I encourage you to talk to someone in a NICU unit. I certainly hope you never have a NICU baby. A friend recently had a baby out of state and ran into the problem. There have certainly been way more than a dozen baby deaths, they've been hushed by hospitals - it's not the hospitals faults, but it IS their fault that they're not talking about it (they don't want to scare parents or encourage lawsuits). And it's not just related to babies.

It's sinful. Agree with the commodities poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who works in pharmaceuticals and recently dealt with a shortage. It's complicated. Part of it is supply & demand. Sometimes demand goes up an manufacturers can't react fast enough. There has been a lot of merging & buying of companies. As an example, 10 companies make a generic drug, but only 2 supply the starting material to make it. Those 2 have trouble manufacturing then everyone suddenly can't manufacture it. Profit is another part of the puzzle. If there is no profit, the incentive to manufacture deminishes. Usually a shortage will drive the price up 10-20x. It's not as though drugs grow in trees. They are subject to many market forces. It's unfortunate, but micro premies are incredibly delicate and I would imagine many things could go wrong besides supplement issues.

If the free market can't handle it, then it has to become a basic "commodity" controlled by the govt. That's how things should work.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the petition started by one of the moms in the article. This problem can be solved if there is a large enough public outcry.

https://www.change.org/petitions/senator-tom-harkin-ia-and-representative-fred-upton-mi-compel-fda-to-end-iv-drug-shortages-now

Thank you for the link. I signed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You have to be kidding me.

+1 re "You have to be kidding me."
You don't think it's a real problem that thousands of people, including babies, are getting sick, not growing properly, and dying? You don't have a problem with a dozen babies dying?? What's wrong with you?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You have to be kidding me.

+1 re "You have to be kidding me."
You don't think it's a real problem that thousands of people, including babies, are getting sick, not growing properly, and dying? You don't have a problem with a dozen babies dying?? What's wrong with you?!

Evidence of "deaths" in the article were antidotal at best. If this were a real issue the CDC would step in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You are missing the point. In this case, the government needs to subsidize the manufacturing of these nutrients. And we need to pay taxes to make that possible.

Okay, and then you will have others, including DCUM readers, screaming "the government should not be in the business of manufacturing and subsidizing the drug industry. the government should allow free enterprise to prevail".

Sure, there will be people who scream like that. Fortunately, there are also the more intelligent people who understand that certain things cannot be left to the free market, but need to be taken on by everyone together as a society. Because that is what government is: what we do together as a society. I know many people in this country don't understand this and see government as some extraneous entity that is somehow against them and their freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You have to be kidding me.

+1 re "You have to be kidding me."
You don't think it's a real problem that thousands of people, including babies, are getting sick, not growing properly, and dying? You don't have a problem with a dozen babies dying?? What's wrong with you?!

Evidence of "deaths" in the article were antidotal at best. If this were a real issue the CDC would step in.

I think that you meant "anecdotal". And "anecdotal" =/= "false". Anecdotal reports of a dozen babies in the DC area dying is absolutely enough to raise an alarm.

Also, I don't know what you mean by the CDC "stepping in". What do you think that the CDC would do? Are you saying that if it's not in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, it didn't happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and wasn't convinced it was a real problem. A dozen babies possibly died?

The FDA is a bureaucracy. They don't actually encourage manufacturing, they just put up barriers that increase manufacturing costs.

You have to be kidding me.

+1 re "You have to be kidding me."
You don't think it's a real problem that thousands of people, including babies, are getting sick, not growing properly, and dying? You don't have a problem with a dozen babies dying?? What's wrong with you?!

Evidence of "deaths" in the article were antidotal at best. If this were a real issue the CDC would step in.

Ok, I feel better now. Not only do you not know what you're talking about ("antidotal"?!) but you didn't read the article. The CDC REPORTED THESE DEFICIENCIES.