Back   OpEdNews
Post a Comment
Original Content at
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Leader Member, or higher).

July 21, 2014

Gilead Sciences Under Investigation for Over-Charging for Hepatitis C Pill

By Corp Watch

CorpWatch : Gilead Sciences Under Investigation for Over-Charging for Hepatitis C Pill


How much should we pay for medicine?
How much should we pay for medicine?
(Image by Corpwatch)
  Details   DMCA

Reprinted from

Gilead Sciences of San Francisco is under investigation by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee for charging $84,000 for a 12 week course of a new drug to treat hepatitis C. Gilead sells the exact same course for $900 in poor countries like Egypt and India.

Sovaldi - the brand name for sofosbuvir - was approved last December by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to treat hepatitis C, a viral infection that can cause fever, fatigue, cirrhosis and deadly liver cancer. Some 150 million people around the world are estimated to be at risk, often many years after receiving contaminated blood tranfusions. (Body Shop founder Anita Roddick died from such a transfusion). Solvaldi has been described as a breakthrough drug because of its ability to cure victims in just three months, with few side effects.

A new study by Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefits firm, estimates that U.S. government healthcare programs alone will have to spend $55 billion to buy Sovaldi. "Should the states be compelled to pay for everyone?" Dr. Steve Miller, medical director for the firm, asked NBC News. "You're going to have to figure out if you're going to have to go back to your voters and ask for more funding."

"Although Sovaldi has the potential to help people with HCV, at $1,000 per pill, its pricing has raised serious concerns about the extent to which the market for this drug is operating efficiently and rationally," the senators wrote. "Given the impact Sovaldi's cost will have on Medicare, Medicaid and other federal spending, we need a better understanding of how your company arrived at the price for this drug."

Activists have been sharply critical. Jennifer Cohn of Doctors Without Borders described Gilead's prices as "corporate greed."

The critics point in particular to the fact that Gilead hasagreed to sell the same drug in the U.K. for $57,000 a course, after the government-run National Health Service negotiated lower prices with the company and for just $900 in Egypt."Egypt's example shows the power of a public health approach and its large scale," Stefan Wiktor, the director of the World Health Organization's global hepatitis program, told Bloomberg. "One of the reasons they were able to negotiate a lower price is because they have a big program."

The company defends its pricing policy. "Gilead's global pricing model is based on a country's ability to pay," says Gregg Alton, executive vice president of corporate and medical affairs at Gilead.

Yet, Gilead's strategy is also likely based on the fact that poor countries like India have taken a firm stand against paying astronomical prices for specialized drugs and courts have ruled in their favor a number of times. Instead of fighting the matter in the courts like Novartis, Gilead has taken a more practical approach of sitting down at the bargaining table. The problem for U.S. victims is that once private health insurers have agreed to pay top dollar, it raises the price for others in the same country, notably the state insurance programs.

Experts say that astronomical prices for newly patented "breakthrough" drugs are not going away anytime soon so long as U.S. insurance companies are willing to pay, a prospect that has helped the stock prices of pharmaceutical companies to soar. For example, Kalydeco, a new drug to treat cystic fibrosis, a genetic lung disease, is priced at $300,000 a year for a treatment that last for a lifetime.

"Wall Street is all charged up. There really hasn't been any pushback yet on cost," Barry Werth, the author of "The Antidote," a book about Kalydeco, told the New York Times. When asked why the company charged so much for the drug, Werth said simply: "Because they can."

Submitters Website:

Submitters Bio:

CorpWatch: Non-profit investigative research and journalism to expose
corporate malfeasance and to advocate for multinational corporate
accountability and transparency. We work to foster global justice,
independent media activism and democratic control over corporations.

We seek to expose multinational corporations that profit from war,
fraud, environmental, human rights and other abuses, and to provide
critical information to foster a more informed public and an effective

Click here for our 2010-2011 Combined Report
Click here for our 2007-2009 Combined Report
Click here for our 2006 Annual Report
Click here for our 2005 Annual report
Click here for our 2004 Annual report

Our guiding vision is to promote human, environmental, social and worker rights at the
local, national and global levels by making corporate practices more
transparent and holding corporations accountable for their actions.

independent investigative researchers and journalists, we provide critical information
to foster a more informed public and an effective democracy.

We believe the actions, decisions, and policies undertaken and
pursued by private corporations have very real impact on public life –
from individuals to communities around the world. Yet few mechanisms
currently exist to hold them accountable for those actions. As a result,
it falls to the public sphere to protect the public interest.

In many cases, corporate power and influence eclipses even the democratic
process itself as they exert disproportional influence on public policy
they deem detrimental to their narrow self-interests. In less developed
nations, they usurp authority altogether, often purchasing government
complicity for unfair practices at the expense of economic,
environmental, human, labor and social rights. 

Yet despite the
very public impact of their actions and decisions, corporations remain
bound to be accountable solely to their own private financial
considerations and the interests of their shareholders. They have little
incentive, nor requirement, for public transparency regarding their
decisions and practices, let alone concrete accountability for their
ultimate impact.