Here Are the Real Dangers of Charging $600 for the EpiPen

If you are like me and rely on an EpiPen to keep you or your child safe from a life-threatening allergic reaction, you’ve probably left the pharmacy thinking, “That’s outrageous for such an essential drug.” 

Now we know exactly how outrageous it is: The price of the EpiPen—an auto-injector of the inexpensive hormone ephinephrine—has skyrocketed by more than 600% since 2008, Money reports, from around $ 100 for the standard two-pack in 2008 to more than $ 735 today. 

Fueling the fury is the fact that the epinephrine itself costs about $ 1, according to Consumerist. Even more disturbing is how much some of the executives at Mylan, EpiPen’s maker, have profited: The compensation of Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, for instance, has soared from $ 2,453,456 in 2007, when Mylan first acquired EpiPen, to $ 18,931,068 in 2015, according to NBC News.

The pressing question now is: Is this legal? Members of Congress including Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R) are demanding Congressional hearings into the pharma company’s pricing practices. They’re joining a growing chorus who say that the steep price is putting some of the nation’s estimated 15 million people with food allergies in grave danger. (The devices are also commonly prescribed for severe allergies to insect stings and latex.) 

RELATED: Your 12 Worst Allergy Mistakes

Mylan has responded with a statement on their website that details the significant investment the company has made in allergy awareness campaigns and patient coupon subsidy programs. It states that the changes in insurance programs are fueling the high sticker price: ”With the current changes in the healthcare insurance landscape, an increasing number of people and families have enrolled in high deductible plans, and deductible amounts continue to rise. This current and ongoing shift has presented new challenges for consumers, and now they are bearing more of the costs.”

But more people are doing without this critical medicine. Some on high deductible plans are leaving the pharmacy without the injector, unable to pay $ 600 or more. Others are making do with just one set—even though allergists instruct you to leave an EpiPen with a school nurse, the teacher, afterschool programs, etc. Relying on expired pens and DIYing epinephrine-delivering syringes are dangerous practices, allergy experts warn.

So how can Mylan can get away with price gouging for an essential drug? EpiPen has no real competition, according to Fortune. A competing device called Auvi-Q was launched by Sanofi US but recalled in 2015 for administering an incorrect amount of the drug, a potentially deadly problem. There may be a competitor on the horizon though: an epinephrine device with a longer shelf-life is expected from Windgap Medical in 2018.

An EpiPen is something you buy and pray you never have to use. If you do need it, it is a literal lifesaver. When given swiftly and properly—you inject it into the thigh and hold for 10 seconds—it can quickly undo the airway swelling, cardiovascular events, tissue swelling, and other dangerous effects of an anaphylactic reaction. If you don’t have enough epinephrine at the ready for prompt injection, the result can be death. Some reactions require more than one injection, which is why the drug comes in a two-pack (and you are supposed to carry both with you; you don’t leave one at school and one at home, as has been reported).

RELATED: 31 Everyday Things You Didn’t Know You Could Be Allergic To

I have used an EpiPen on my younger son, who is highly allergic to tree nuts and peanuts. I know the drill, as all allergy families do: Do not go anywhere without at least two EpiPens. Do not hesitate to use the EpiPen at first signs of severe reaction, and use the second if needed. Call 911, then go straight to the ER. 

I know the benefits firsthand. It works. It saves. It is the fifth member of our family, with us at all times. I am thankful for epinephrine beyond words.

As a working parent fortunate enough to have solid health insurance, I can curse my $ 60 copay (the highest tier in my ”gold” insurance plan, and twice what it was when I started buying EpiPens in 2009) and plunk down a credit card. For back to school, I’ll spend $ 180 on three; with all the other school costs, we feel that. We can swing it though. Many, many, many families cannot.

This isn’t an optional drug, it isn’t a drug that you can safely use past its expiration date, and it shouldn’t be priced out of anyone’s reach.

Here Are the Real Dangers of Charging $600 for the EpiPen

Actual risk of widespread well being charging underneath Tories, says Labour

Shrinking the public sector to the dimension envisioned by the Conservatives could lead to widespread charging in the overall health support, Labour claims.

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, based mostly his claim on figures covering 34 created economies that present extensive health service charging in any nation that shrinks its state spending to as modest as 35% of GDP, the target proposed by the Tories for 2019-20. On common the level of fees is 3 times increased in individuals countries than in the Uk at current.

“What [the chancellor] George Osborne is proposing represents a real threat to the long term of the well being support,” Balls informed the Guardian.

Labour is trying to make the long term of the NHS the focal stage of the election campaign and will reveal new pledges following week on medical professionals, nurses’ coaching and social care.

There have been a succession of warnings from thinktanks that NHS finances are below unprecedented strain. Following week wellness workers are due to consider strike action above pay.

The newest A&ampE waiting occasions published on Thursday showed an improvement on the preceding time period, but the government target of 95% of patients becoming noticed inside of four hours is nevertheless becoming missed.

Labour says OECD figures show that 4 economies have public spending of 35% of GDP or less, all of which have greater “out-of-pocket expenditure” on health as a share of home investing than the United kingdom.

It mentioned the common degree of out-of-pocket expenditure as a proportion of complete spending on well being was more than treble the United kingdom figure.

The figures present that in 2012 Uk government spending was 45% of GDP, and out-of-pocket expenditure represented ten% of total overall health paying.

Swiss public paying was 33% of GDP and out-of-pocket expenditure created up 28% of total health spending. Mexican public spending was 27% of GDP and out-of-pocket expenditure accounted for virtually half of all overall health spending.

Balls stated: “This is what the overseas expertise displays if you go to these intense amounts of minimal public investing. There is a actual risk that a second Tory government will introduce costs.”

The Conservatives will deny the claims and say this is yet another try by Labour to use the NHS for party acquire. They stated the figures could reflect distinct priorities of various countries rather than a causal hyperlink among wellness charging and amounts of state paying.

It has currently promised that state paying on the NHS will be protected in the up coming parliament, but Balls said the coalition had only partially set out the source of the funding for this pledge for the first yr of the subsequent parliament.

The Tories have previously pointed out that state paying briefly fell to 35% of GDP beneath Labour, but Balls’s workplace explained this reduced stage, inherited from the Conservatives, came just as Tony Blair agreed large-scale increases in NHS spending.

Balls denied he was scaremongering and cited a warning from the director of the IFS thinktank, Paul Johnson, who said Osborne’s strategies essential a basic re-imagining of the position of the state.

The shadow chancellor said: “In that light it is very legitimate to ask questions about what the NHS will seem like in this globe. It is proper to level out that all countries that have gone down to this degree of public paying have considerably, a lot better degrees of charging for healthcare than the United kingdom does now. We at present have a single of the lowest degree of expenses.

“In my view you are not able to go down to this kind of sustained lower levels of public spending – the lowest for 70 many years – and anticipate the NHS to stay recognisable. These are the largest cuts in excess of 4 many years since the 2nd globe war.”

He extra: “Ten many years ago in the 2005 Conservative manifesto written by David Cameron, the Tories set out programs for a patient passport that introduced charges for folks that wished to jump the queue, so Cameron and Osborne have acquired kind on introducing costs for fundamental medical treatment options.”

Actual risk of widespread well being charging underneath Tories, says Labour

GPs vote towards charging individuals for appointments

GPs at the BMA annual regional health-related committee conference back portion of the movement that says ‘general practice is unsustainable in its present format’. Photograph: RayArt Graphics/Alamy

GPs have voted towards a proposal to charge sufferers for appointments in a bid to assist money-strapped surgeries.

A motion advocating expenses was defeated at the British Healthcare Association’s yearly regional healthcare committee (LMC) conference in York on Thursday. GPs, nonetheless, backed part of the motion that stated “basic practice is unsustainable in its recent format”. A large quantity of GPs queued up to examine the proposal, with twice as numerous wanting to communicate to oppose it as to back it.

London-based GP Dr Laurence Buckman, a former chair of the BMA’s standard practitioners committee (GPC), described the proposal as harmful.

“We do not control demand by producing individuals pay,” he explained. “You then get survival of the richest.” He stated the proposal, if adopted, would lead to reduce pay for GPs, who would be anticipated to prime up their earnings with fees paid by sufferers. The present chair of the GPC, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, also opposed the motion, arguing that it would lead to a less equitable NHS. “In the United kingdom we don’t tax sickness, that is what charging would do,” he said.

But Dr John Grenville, from Derbyshire, mentioned supporting the movement would give the government a essential “kick up the backside”, incorporating: “It grieves me to have to communicate in favour of this motion but we have heard an awful whole lot about what is incorrect with the NHS and general practice.”

Dr Lee Salkeld, from Avon, also favoured the movement, arguing that charging would facilitate much better entry and longer appointments.

The most contentious part of the five-element movement proposed by the BMA’s Avon LMC called on the GPC “to discover nationwide charging for common practice services with the Uk governments” and was not passed. But a less contentious element that criticised the “inadequate help for several practices” was carried by delegates. The motion did not specify a charge but a fee of £25 was believed to be under consideration.

There has been a growing clamour for folks to be charged for utilizing some NHS companies, amid worries that the standing quo is financially unsustainable. Former Labour overall health minister Lord Warner, who served under Tony Blair, has proposed that absolutely everyone pay out a £10-a-month NHS “membership charge” to save it from sliding into a decline. The King’s Fund has stated charges for hospital and GP appointments may need to have to be launched. But health service campaigners have expressed alarm about the affect charging would have on accessibility.

The Department of Well being stated prior to the vote that it was “definitely clear that the NHS should be totally free at the point of use, and we will not charge for GP appointments”.

Motions to charge for GP providers have been rejected by the BMA in prior years. A ComRes poll in March discovered that even though one in 4 (27%) men and women mentioned they would be ready to pay out £10 to visit their GP rather than see the practice shut down, far more than double that – 56% – had been towards any charges.

GPs vote towards charging individuals for appointments

Charging for crutches is the initial unpleasant phase in direction of dismantling the NHS | Kailash Chand

‘The reason people are issued with these devices is because there is a clinical need for them; it is not a nice luxury they could do without.’ Photograph: DNY59/Getty

There is little doubt that the NHS is under huge strain from a period of sustained austerity. In this difficult economic climate it is not surprising that local NHS bodies across the country are having to make difficult choices in agonising circumstances – but we must not allow this to compromise the founding principles which have sustained our health services since its creation.

South Warwickshire clinical commissioning group (CCGs) is clearly facing serious financial issues, caused by the government’s failure to recognise that the NHS is struggling to cope with rising patient demand, especially from our ageing society. It is the lack of understanding of these pressures that is causing CCGs like South Warickshire to look at plans like alternative income streams.

Unfortunately in that case consideration now appears to being given to introducing charging for essential medical equipment such as walking sticks, knee braces and wrist splints. Let us be under no illusion that this is a trivial proposal, or something that will not affect patients. The reason people are issued with these devices is because there is a clear clinical need for them from the patient’s perspective; it is not a nice added luxury they could do without, it is a key part of reducing pain and improving a patient’s life. As such this is a small part of the wider ideology that has made our health service so cherished by British people: if you need help with your health you get it, free of charge, regardless of your background, wealth or status in society.

By putting in place a system of charging for any form of treatment you are eroding and damaging that key principle. The fact is that, with any charge, there are people who will be able to afford these items and those who will not. In this case, many older, frail people, and those on low incomes with small budgets, will be faced with a choice as to whether they pay for devices they badly need or keep the money back to pay for essentials, like keeping their house warm or putting food on the table.

As a consequence we will be opening up a huge gap between the haves and have-nots in the NHS. We will be returning to a dark, terrible period before the second world war when the quality of your health depended on the size of your bank balance. This was an era that as a society we firmly closed the door on – we do not now need to reopen that door by stealth.

From a practical point of view, another economic argument arises that undermines any plan to introduce charges. If people are discouraged by charges for getting essential equipment, then their health will invariable be compromised as their wellbeing will worsen. This will result in patients needing more admissions to hospital, visits to the GP and so on. In the long term, this measure will therefore end up costing the NHS more money and waste further time, exacerbating the very problem that the charging is supposed to solve.

No one should be against CCGs and others making sure every penny is spent wisely. But we cannot and must not set ourselves down a path that devalues our cherished health system, and starts the process of splintering the delivering care based solely on how much money people have in their bank account.

Charging for crutches is the initial unpleasant phase in direction of dismantling the NHS | Kailash Chand