Some Notes Toward a Comprehensive Plan for Screwing Martin Shkreli


As we all know, Rosa Parks was not the first black woman in Montgomery to be arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus. There were two before her, but local black leaders declined to make test cases out of them. They waited until they found someone who was sure to gain white sympathy, and Parks fit the bill.

Martin Shkreli is sort of the anti-Rosa Parks. Lots of companies have jacked up the price of drugs before, and they got only blips of attention. Then Shkreli came along and jacked up the price of Daraprim from $13 to $750—and instantly became the poster child for evil scum. That’s because he was perfect for the role. He’s a Wall Street hedge fund guy. He was fired by a firm he founded when the board accused him of using the company as a “personal piggy bank to pay back angry investors in his hedge fund.” He looks like a callous young punk. And instead of hiding behind a PR flack, he happily gave interviews where he all but told the world to fuck off and pay his price if they wanted Daraprim.

That makes this whole story too good to check. Why interfere with the public lynching of a guy who seems to richly deserve it? And yet, you still wonder how he got away with this. Daraprim is just pyrimethamine, a drug invented decades ago and no longer under patent. Why doesn’t someone else make it?

The usual answer is that it’s not worth anyone’s time. In the United States it’s primarily used to treat toxoplasmosis and accounts for only about 10,000 prescriptions a year. If you’ve already done the chemistry and the marketing and the manufacturing setup, you might as well keep making the stuff. But starting up from scratch involves high fixed costs, and it’s not worth it. So Shkreli is safe. He can charge sky-high prices in the certain knowledge that no one will enter the market to compete with him.

But Alex Tabarrok says that’s not quite the case. Lots of companies make pyrimethamine overseas, and for them startup costs aren’t an issue. The problem is that none of them have gotten FDA approval to sell in America, and that’s expensive and time consuming. Basically, Shkreli is engaging in regulatory arbitrage, with the high fixed cost of FDA approval keeping him just as safe from new competitors entering the market as the fixed cost of starting up a manufacturing line.

This got me curious. Tabarrok concedes that Indian or Chinese generic drug makers are a little dodgy, and the FDA might be right to insist on keeping their products out of the country without rigorous testing. But what about European drug makers? Why not give them reciprocity? If a generic drug is approved in Europe, go ahead and provide streamlined approval in the US. Why not trust European drug regulators?

Actually, it turns out to be even weirder than that. Take the case of Fansidar. It’s a combination of pyrimethamine and sulphadoxine made by Roche. It was approved by the FDA in 1981 and went on the market in 1982, primarily as an anti-malarial drug.1 Roche has sold bazillions of tablets since then, and the cost seems to vary from a dollar or two in small quantities to a few cents in large quantities. It has even been tested for toxoplasmosis and found to be pretty effective.

So, Roche already manufactures pyrimethamine. They already have FDA approval for a drug that contains it. They already have a well-respected manufacturing capability. And they already have distribution in the United States. All they’d have to do is make the same tablet but without the sulphadoxine and put it on the market. If the FDA were willing to streamline the approval, the startup costs would be very low.

Now, for a company the size of Roche, it might still not be worth it. But there are plenty of other companies that make pyrimethamine/sulphadoxine combinations. If the FDA offered quick approval for a pyrimethamine-only tablet, I wonder if someone would take them up on it? Legally, the FDA is not supposed to consider cost in its approval process, but surely it would be worth making an exception just to see Shkreli take a bath on his cute little scheme.

1I gather that it’s no longer a state-of-the-art treatment for malaria, but that doesn’t matter for our story.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate