Anonymous wrote:Our compounder adds Vit K so it’s not considered the same drug, so not affected by it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If compounds go away, I’ll just buy name brand overseas. My doctor already said he would give me physical RXs and then it would be on me to get them filled in Canada or elsewhere. I’ll gladly pay what Canadians are paying.

Lol. It doesn't work that way. You can't just drive up into Canada and hand them a US script. No anymore than you can walk into CVS and expect your prescription from France/Phillipines/Colombia/Kenya to get filled. You need a script from a Canadian provider. And even then, you think you will just bring the drugs back into the US? Ya'll are not talking much sense on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If compounds go away, I’ll just buy name brand overseas. My doctor already said he would give me physical RXs and then it would be on me to get them filled in Canada or elsewhere. I’ll gladly pay what Canadians are paying.

Lol. It doesn't work that way. You can't just drive up into Canada and hand them a US script. No anymore than you can walk into CVS and expect your prescription from France/Phillipines/Colombia/Kenya to get filled. You need a script from a Canadian provider. And even then, you think you will just bring the drugs back into the US? Ya'll are not talking much sense on this thread.

You can get them co-signed. You can also fill them through the mail. Lastly, if for some reason that fails, I will gladly order online from India or China.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If compounds go away, I’ll just buy name brand overseas. My doctor already said he would give me physical RXs and then it would be on me to get them filled in Canada or elsewhere. I’ll gladly pay what Canadians are paying.

Lol. It doesn't work that way. You can't just drive up into Canada and hand them a US script. No anymore than you can walk into CVS and expect your prescription from France/Phillipines/Colombia/Kenya to get filled. You need a script from a Canadian provider. And even then, you think you will just bring the drugs back into the US? Ya'll are not talking much sense on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:Compounding hasn't stifled innovation at all. Lilly is deep into the next GLP meds. As are all the other drug companies including Novo. Lilly and Novo we're just the first across the finish line.

No one should be priced out of life saving care because of big pharma and insurance companies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going away. Trump's new head of FDA and lawsuit will keep compounding in business for the foreseeable future . I would assume insurance and drug manufacturers will figure out how to make the named drugs more accessible and cheaper with the pressure. If not the compounders will keep stealing their business.

Please tell me you are joking. Of course he won’t.

Not joking. Do you know who the nominee is?

Anti COVID vaxx JHU dude.

He is a transplant surgeon and exec at Sesame. All in on compounds. Now with Elon on injections-- here to stay.

You can't be "all in on compounds." There is such a thing as patent law in the US. Full stop.

Do you have any idea how much power Pharma has in the US, anyway?

Big pharma is really worried right now. FDA makes the designation which allows compounders to thrive. It is fun to watch Lily try to compete with them now.

It starts at the FDA, when they put a drug on the shortage list. But it doesn’t end there. Patent protections are in the statutes, which does allow compounding during shortages. But, if they are on the list and not actually in shortage, then drug companies file in federal Court. And if it gets to SCOTUS, they are ideologically conservative, which makes them more likely to uphold patent law and let the free market do its thing. Trumps justices would vote against carving out an exception to patent law for GLP-1s, because there is nothing in the plain language of the statute that allows it absent an actual shortage.

You are getting way ahead of yourself here. The current litigation isn't patent related. Compounders will be able to compound away (under temporary order) until there is a decision there. To think the Trump FDA is going to uphold a decision made by the Biden FDA is laughable.

Anonymous wrote:If compounds go away, I’ll just buy name brand overseas. My doctor already said he would give me physical RXs and then it would be on me to get them filled in Canada or elsewhere. I’ll gladly pay what Canadians are paying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going away. Trump's new head of FDA and lawsuit will keep compounding in business for the foreseeable future . I would assume insurance and drug manufacturers will figure out how to make the named drugs more accessible and cheaper with the pressure. If not the compounders will keep stealing their business.

Please tell me you are joking. Of course he won’t.

Not joking. Do you know who the nominee is?

Anti COVID vaxx JHU dude.

He is a transplant surgeon and exec at Sesame. All in on compounds. Now with Elon on injections-- here to stay.

You can't be "all in on compounds." There is such a thing as patent law in the US. Full stop.

Do you have any idea how much power Pharma has in the US, anyway?

Big pharma is really worried right now. FDA makes the designation which allows compounders to thrive. It is fun to watch Lily try to compete with them now.

It starts at the FDA, when they put a drug on the shortage list. But it doesn’t end there. Patent protections are in the statutes, which does allow compounding during shortages. But, if they are on the list and not actually in shortage, then drug companies file in federal Court. And if it gets to SCOTUS, they are ideologically conservative, which makes them more likely to uphold patent law and let the free market do its thing. Trumps justices would vote against carving out an exception to patent law for GLP-1s, because there is nothing in the plain language of the statute that allows it absent an actual shortage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elon just posted a pic of himself on X and attributed his slim physique to Mounjaro. He’s said things recently about how Americans should have better access to weight loss drugs. We’ll see.

Interesting to see how that happens when an enormous number of Americans are covered under the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, which don’t currently cover weight loss drugs. And FEHB, which is required to cover at least one GLP-1, but under increasingly less generous terms that Feds can’t afford. And the government also subsidizes many ACA plans, and would bear at least some of the cost of increased premiums to add these drugs. I’m sure how you square cutting $2T from the federal budget while simultaneously adding such an enormously expensive benefit.

Have you seen the number? It would cost approx $411B dollars to prescribe GLP-1s to the approx 50% of Americans who could benefit (diabetic, obese, overweight with co-morbidities, now includes sleep apnea and early disease, soon to a NASH and addiction). https://cboh.kenaninstitute.unc.edu/publication/glp-1-pricing-conundrums-continue/

In 2022, the entire federal civilian payroll was $271B (the most recent number from a reliable source I could find quickly). And in most agencies, numbers of employees has remained flat since then. I’m SSA which is one of the largest agencies and we have fewer employees per claimant than at any point in the last 40 years. Meanwhile, our cases keep getting more complex. The backlogs are crazy and people are being detailed all over the place to put out the biggest fires in a robbing Peter to pay Paul scheme. There is no fat to trim. And we are not the only agency stretched to the breaking point.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235#:~:text=In%20fiscal%20year%202022%2C%20the,the%20Department%20of%20Homeland%20Security.

https://www.ssa.gov/finance/2024/The%20Social%20Security%20Administration%E2%80%99s%20Major%20Management%20and%20Performance%20Challenges%20During%20Fiscal%20Year%202024.pdf

My point is that if DOGE fired every single federal civilian employees, including those processing SSA claims and make sure checks go out, VA staff, TSA, air traffic control, customs and border control, the IC, civilian DOD, etc— the saving would not pay for GLP-1s for everyone who needs them.

You can’t get the budget down and add over $400B to entitlements. There literally aren’t enough civilian feds for Mump and DOGE to fire to offset the cost.

And NO, Trump cannot EO his way out of Patent law. Actual laws in the CFR protect these patents. A EO cannot over ride a statute. Congress, acting together, could pass a law capping prices, like they did for insulin. But free market capitalist Rs were strongly against that part of the IRA. And the FDA/ MUMP cannot just wave wand and make exceptions to a lawfully issued patent. Novo Nordisk goes to Court, and the patent is enforced.

Now, many of us think it’s ridiculous that Americans pay multiples of what other countries do for meds under patent. But, most of us are Dems, and they have no power for the next 2 years. And even small steps by Dems to bring down some patented drug proaces— letting Medicare negotiate for lower prices on a short list of drugs and capping insulin prices have been met with strong opposition by Rs who want say the free market should determine prices. Well, in the US, the free market believes these drugs are work about $15k a year, per person.

So, which is it Rs? Should drugs be subject to free market capitalism? Or do you want price controls for this one drug because you want to be skinny— which drugs that would cure cancer or slow Alzheimer’s remain out of reach for many Americans? Or do you want to push the deficit up 1/2 a Trillion dollars a year to cover them, while simultaneously promising to lower the deficit by $2T? And if you do add the 400+B to entitlements, where are you cutting to offset this— let alone cutting $2T? You can’t have it all.

Anonymous wrote:My companies medical coverage BCBS increased by 30% these drugs where the reasons cited for the massive increase. For those of us that don't use these drug this is really messed up.

Thanks to all of you who abused the system to get these when they were not medically necessary. I sat there and never said anything reading all your posts, the constant posts on here about lying about your weight to get these medication, but now I'm mad I have to pay more for those of you lying to get them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going away. Trump's new head of FDA and lawsuit will keep compounding in business for the foreseeable future . I would assume insurance and drug manufacturers will figure out how to make the named drugs more accessible and cheaper with the pressure. If not the compounders will keep stealing their business.

Please tell me you are joking. Of course he won’t.

Not joking. Do you know who the nominee is?

Anti COVID vaxx JHU dude.

He is a transplant surgeon and exec at Sesame. All in on compounds. Now with Elon on injections-- here to stay.

You can't be "all in on compounds." There is such a thing as patent law in the US. Full stop.

Do you have any idea how much power Pharma has in the US, anyway?

+1. Elon Musk— or even a Trump EO— cannot override the Us statutes passed by Congress protecting these patents. Besides, should we let the free market economy set the price for GLP-1s? Allowing compounders to come II and violate patents stifles innovation, is socialist, and is an example of the government choosing winners and losers among private companies. Killing Lily’s incentive to innovate and giving a government boost to Noom. That’s not the GOP way.

Also interesting that you aren’t nearly as upset about patents on things like expensive cancer drugs that price people out of life saving care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going away. Trump's new head of FDA and lawsuit will keep compounding in business for the foreseeable future . I would assume insurance and drug manufacturers will figure out how to make the named drugs more accessible and cheaper with the pressure. If not the compounders will keep stealing their business.

Please tell me you are joking. Of course he won’t.

Not joking. Do you know who the nominee is?

Anti COVID vaxx JHU dude.

He is a transplant surgeon and exec at Sesame. All in on compounds. Now with Elon on injections-- here to stay.

You can't be "all in on compounds." There is such a thing as patent law in the US. Full stop.

Do you have any idea how much power Pharma has in the US, anyway?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going away. Trump's new head of FDA and lawsuit will keep compounding in business for the foreseeable future . I would assume insurance and drug manufacturers will figure out how to make the named drugs more accessible and cheaper with the pressure. If not the compounders will keep stealing their business.

Please tell me you are joking. Of course he won’t.

Not joking. Do you know who the nominee is?

Anti COVID vaxx JHU dude.

He is a transplant surgeon and exec at Sesame. All in on compounds. Now with Elon on injections-- here to stay.

You can't be "all in on compounds." There is such a thing as patent law in the US. Full stop.

Do you have any idea how much power Pharma has in the US, anyway?

Big pharma is really worried right now. FDA makes the designation which allows compounders to thrive. It is fun to watch Lily try to compete with them now.

It starts at the FDA, when they put a drug on the shortage list. But it doesn’t end there. Patent protections are in the statutes, which does allow compounding during shortages. But, if they are on the list and not actually in shortage, then drug companies file in federal Court. And if it gets to SCOTUS, they are ideologically conservative, which makes them more likely to uphold patent law and let the free market do its thing. Trumps justices would vote against carving out an exception to patent law for GLP-1s, because there is nothing in the plain language of the statute that allows it absent an actual shortage.