Illustration by Corey BrightAaron Stuber - Opinions Columnistabstuber@uab.edu
For many college-aged students, the cost of prescription drugs does not cross their minds, as many either do not buy them themselves or they do not need them. But for others, increasing drug prices pose a major problem.
The most recent drug price-hike scandal includes that of EpiPen. Simply put, the price of the world-famous spring-loaded epinephrine auto-injector increased from approximately $100 in 2008 to around $650 today. Why is the EpiPen so expensive? If the cost has nothing to do with the epinephrine, which is no longer patented, that costs about $1.30 to produce a single dose, then what could it be?
One unfortunate issue with many customers requesting EpiPen is there is not a “generic” version to the drug. I use the term generic loosely, because epinephrine actually is “generic,” but the spring-loaded mechanism that is in the EpiPen is patent-protected. So why is this distinction important? With current Alabama pharmacy laws, your pharmacist cannot substitute EpiPen for other epinephrine auto-injectors because they are not deemed “bioequivalent” to EpiPen. With the drug’s rampant market hold and name recognition, many physicians actually may not be aware of other epinephrine auto-injectors on the market, and convincing them to write a prescription for those can be a daunting task, especially when they do not feel knowledgeable about the alternatives. Additionally, EpiPen’s major competitor, Auvi-Q, was pulled from the market about a year ago because it did not deliver the correct amount of medication it advertised. This has given
EpiPen free reign on the market with no other major brands in competition.
While major drug corporations are coming into the spotlight for their unethical price hikes (see: sociopath Martin Shkreli on Daraprim), it comes as no surprise that each passing year more and more patients have to forgo life-saving medications. While companies offer drug-discount cards, many of these do not completely cover the cost of the medication, even when one is fully insured (I’m sure there is a way to blame Obama for this, just like how Bush did Hurricane Katrina, but I can’t see it because I don’t have vision insurance — whoops).
For those of you out there fighting your way, good luck paying your premium and your drug co-pay. The $25.82 million salary of Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, the pharmaceutical company behind EpiPen, thanks you for your business. Just note, if you are lucky enough to attend that highfalutin party on Bresch’s yacht with the crab cake Hors d’Oeuvres that you just happen to be deathly allergic to, just say, “that’s okay. I’ll let the anaphylaxis kill me.” Because, let’s be honest, you were probably going to die of starvation from the crippling debt that buying an EpiPen would put you in anyway. Maybe you’d be lucky and your death would be enough of a protest to convince drug company CEOs that their multi-million dollar salaries are a bit much.
Election turns news channels into drama series
Kym Payne
Contributor
kympayne@uab.edu
The phrase “you can’t make this stuff up” has crossed the minds of anyone who is breathing. There is a new reality show hit series titled “Presidential Campaign 2016,” and it has had a week of award winning moments following the Commander in Chief Forum with Matt Lauer. The abrupt exit of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton at the 9/11 memorial ceremony has stirred concern over her health and her capacity to serve as president. The loud echoes of her statement “basket of deplorables” directed at half of Trump supporters has rallied the internal loyalty of members adhering to the label. Clinton may have been in the spotlight, but Trump managed to stay in the conversation of controversy. During the above mentioned forum, Trump was asked about his tweet on sexual assault in the military. He affirmed his continued belief, “26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military – only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?” As much as I wish it were true, our front running presidential candidates are NOT reading from a script.
We all know that we choose a candidate that is speaking the language that we identify with; indeed, we cast a vote for the candidate who possesses the skills, values and experience that we deem necessary to successfully execute the position he or she is vying for. We tend to support candidates that reflect what our individual life experiences have taught us about how society should operate. Every area of our society is directly affected, in one form or another, by government. If there is an area that we disapprove of, it is necessary to peacefully express our concerns; likewise, it is necessary as a citizen and politician to hear the concerns of the opposing view. It is literally a politician’s responsibility to listen to the voice of the public. Listening, when done properly and without judgement, usually results in the ability to cooperate for the common good. So when a voter expresses concern over security or civil liberties, our candidates should listen and serve. Not necessarily comply with every request, but at the least avoid disregarding
expression from the people that ultimately provide their paycheck.
What does the expression of the voter say about us as a nation? For one thing, the varied expressions should tell us that we are a huge country spaced in both ideology and in geography. Is that bad? No. It simply means we have lived in and observed a society that has shaped our views. It also means that a skill that would be beneficial as Commander in Chief would be creating the possibility for unity. Now, I know you’re thinking “my candidate wants unity.” If I am not mistaken, the rhetoric we are hearing is, “We need to come together as a nation and not let the other party divide us!” One word: contradiction. Both parties speak this language of “us” and “them” while falsifying their intent to unite. In the meantime, we as one nation have a responsibility as well. If our representatives are unable to unite, let us teach them.
So what is deplorable? It is understandable for politicians to view particular behavior as inexcusable. They deserve the mercy that comes with being human and having their own life experience that has shaped their views. However, it is deplorable for presidential candidates to cross the line and attack voters. In this campaign, we are seeing this from both parties. Perhaps as a nation, we can influence change from the bottom up from the inside out.
