My husband takes several heart medications which affect his “staying power” so he finally asked his doctor for a prescription for Viagra. Little did we know that it wouldn’t be covered by insurance (why is that?) and that 30 little pills would cost $253.34!!! I had heard it was expensive, but gee whiz!! Why in the hell does it cost that much??? 'Cause it’s so popular and they can charge whatever they want? Or because it really costs that much to manufacture? Inquiring minds want to know!
It costs a fortune to get a new drug approved by the FDA.
Why do you think other people should pay for your aphrodisiac? Viagra didn’t exist a few years ago, so you should be glad it’s available to you.
Basic supply/demand. Pricing ‘cosmeceuticals’ is a very hot topic. You’ll notice that the initial push for DTC focused around the condition erectile dysfunction wihtout mentioning the product; the feeling that showing Bob Dole could legitimize the condition as a significant one among middle to older aged men.
It hasn’t worked. Insurance companies haven’t and likely won’t buy into the argument that the condition is one that should be covered. Other drugs such as Propecia fall into the same category…as these drugs will not necessary save your life…but they’ll make you happier.
Making you happier…means demanding…and demanding means price increase.
Additionally, other treatment options are not pleasant (injections, etc.). Finally, it won’t have any competition until TAP is able to get approval on its oral product Uprima which has a different mechanism (works on the brain…not the blood flow). If Uprima is launched, competition will likely take the price down a bit.
Until then gotta pony up to get it up.
Sad but true.
I think it is the pharmaceutical company’s way of getting a rise out of consumers by charging an arm and a leg to help another appendage. 
It cost what the market will bear. Desperate men will pay quite a lot to regain that which was lost…
Profit. Like Jodydafish said, its supply and demand- what the market will bear. In Mexico, Viagra is much cheaper as that’s what they can “get away with” charging. Recouping the cost of R & D is part of it, but turning a profit is a bigger part.
This is so wrong I don’t know where to start. First, Viagra is NOT and aphrodisiac, just as the former treatment of injecting drugs directly into the penis wasn’t an aphrodisiac (and technically it wouldn’t be her aphrodisiac). Second, does she ever say that she isn’t glad that it is available to her? Third, the E.D. is a condition brought on by another medication and she is (directly or indirectly) paying for the insurance, not looking for a “free ride”.
Boils aren’t a life-threatening condition but if I broke out in boils as a side effect from another medication, I would hope that my insurance (which I pay for) would cover it.
If your insurance should cover Viagra then mine should pay for a hooker for me because I have a worse problem which is that I have an erection and nowhere to put it.
I’m sure you have that problem in hand.
Insurance should cover treatment for debilitating conditions that hamper a normal lifestyle. By the same token, insurance companies that cover Viagra should also pay out for birth control since pregnancy is exactly such a debilitating condition. Insurance companies should realize that erections and pregnancy are related.
Many insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid are tentative about covering psychiatric medication, and even if they do, there are many restrictions. Case in point, I have a freind who is bipolar and her psychiatrist wrote her a prescription for a new anti-seizure drug called Neurontin, which, has showed to be effective in quelling the bipolar’s manic phase with minimal side effects. Turns out her plan wouldn’t cover it, so the doc had to switch to Depakote, a medication which can and often does cause weight gain, hair loss, acne, depression and serious liver problems. It’s reasons like this I find it difficult to have sympathy for someone who can’t get his Viagra covered.
My insurance company does pay for birth control pills and testosterone for menopausal effects in women. My husband’s e.d. is caused by either his congestive heart failure and/or the drugs he takes for it. It is not an aphrodisiac at all, it is a way to keep blood flowing to a certain appendage. Seems to me that if an insurance company will pay for testosterone for a woman’s diminished libido, then it should pay for a drug to relieve symptoms of a major health problem.
>> Insurance should cover treatment for debilitating conditions that hamper a normal lifestyle
Yup. They should pay for a hair transplant for my baldness, for a boob job for my wife and the premium should not be over $25 a month since that is what I can afford.
Not being able to conceive due to E.D. is a drastically different matter than not being able to get laid because your personality sucks and people can’t see past your baldness.
Now that we’re totally off the subject…the answer to your question is really cost/ benefit to the pharmaceutical company. Developing any drug is FAR from free…
Sorry to get on my soap box but I used to work at a pharmaceutical company and cost complaints were the story of our lives. Look at it this way: You are Pfizer (maker of Viagra), and to get that drug from discovery phase through clinical testing and to the pharmacist shelf costs between $350-$500 million dollars (if you don’t believe me, check the figures at http://www.phrma.org). That, of course, doesn’t include all the drugs that didn’t make it to the pharmacist shelf that were killed along the way (as many as 9 out of 10 leads). Now, your patent on Viagra (which you establish shortly after identifying it as a possible lead) is 20 years, but you burned at least 10 (and usually more) of those years in testing to get it to the pharmacist shelf. Now you have to re-coup the R&D costs, get some money to pay for ONGOING R&D for other projects the company is doing, and of course, make a profit.
The price will drop the instant the drug goes off-patent at the 20 year mark and generics become available, because it has to, but not before then.
I’m always a little weary of the stuff in Mexico. As you have probably heard, drugs are quite a bit cheaper in other countries sometimes. This is sometimes due to the fact the government partially subsidizes the cost, or more often, the fact that the drug is priced differently because the economy of a place like Mexico is a far cry from what it is here. The drug will also often carry a different name. Sometimes you get the exact drug for half the prize and everyone is happy. Other times, the mexican pharmacy will import a knock-off from South East Asia (notorius for its lack of intellectual property laws) which is sometimes the right drug, and sometimes just a placebo.
Which brings up a good point about quality-of-life drugs like Viagra in general. They can be very psychologically addictive. That is, even if you started out needing them once in a while for E.D., pretty soon you convince yourself you need them all the time. The same thing can happen with the Social Anxiety Disorder crowd taking Paxil. Perhaps that’s why insurance companies shy away from reimbursing these since people may never get off of them.
Also, not to be crude, but how many ‘hard-ons’ do you think you and your husband deserve a month to be considered a normal sex life? I’d bet you and your insurance company will knock heads over that one. They’ll probably tell you that since you are married, married couples never have sex anymore and thus you don’t need any! 
One other point I forgot to make…which is a solution:
Extend the life of pharmaceutical patents (like they do for so-called orphan drugs) and the price of drugs will come down because the pharmaceutical company will have a longer time to re-coup their costs and make their profit.
Then the problem becomes, if you give the pharmaceutical companies a break on their patents, why not every other industry?
…Enter the lawyers and you see why things are the way they are…
No, Yarster, once they make their R&D costs back, they’re not going to drop the price, as there won’t be any competition with that longer patent period.
If we want cheaper drugs, we have to substitute much lower FDA regs. Right now, FDA costs alone are exhorbitant - my sister-in-law works for a certain drug company and just had a meeting in D.C. It cost $25,000 an hour to meet with them.
A friend of mine was born with a cleft palate. she got it fixed as a kid, but 25 years later some rather obvious scarring remains. She’s been self-concious about the scars since the first day of school, but can’t get them fixed, as removing them has been consideres “cosmetic” by her insurance company. She’s been denied a “normal” life by the insurance company and is midly agoraphobic. Which is the greater injustice: and expensive hard-on or being afraid to leave the house for fear of everybody staring at you?
We need to nationalize the whole damn industry, anyway. Throw the commies a bone, sez I…
FWIW: you can get up to five years of patent term extension for the time that a drug waiting for FDA approval.
Other than that, Yarster’s post is dead on the money.
yabob:
I know it’s bad form to post without real purpose, but I just had to tell ya that one got a real chuckle from me…
That comes to well under $10 per hard-on. I would gladly pay $10 for a hard-on if I couldn’t get one, I don’t see what the problem is.
My parents have to pay over $1000 a month for the prescriptions that keep them alive (myasthenia gravis for Dad, emphyzema (sp?) and diabetes for Mom, over a half-dozen prescriptions for each), their insurance doesn’t cover prescriptions. People complaining about the price of Viagra don’t have much room to complain.