[tablespoon]

> If you send your compounds off for proper testing it shouldn't be that dangerous, but that will increase the cost a few 100% most likely

> Testing usually doesn't come cheap, but you also might be able to drop by a well equipped Chem department at a university for testing as well

I don't think it's that easy. Even if you successfully synthesize the right chemical, you also have to get dosage and delivery right (consistently!).

From the OP:

> In response, Four Thieves published the instructions for a DIY epipen online that can be made for $30 in off-the-shelf parts and reloaded for $3.

If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it (e.g. mechanism fails, storage stability issues, dosage issues, etc.). Sure I guess it's better than nothing, but it's also proof this clearly isn't the solution to the $600 epipen problem.

> Shkreli drove the price of the lifesaving HIV medicine Daraprim sells up to $750 per pill. So Four Thieves developed an open source portable chemistry lab that allows anyone to manufacture their own Daraprim for just 25 cents apiece.

The article calls Daraprim and "HIV medicine" throughout, but isn't that misleading? I thought it was an anti-parasitic (that may be used by HIV patients to treat secondary infections).

[wizzwizz4]

> If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it. Sure I guess it's better than nothing, but it's also proof this clearly isn't the solution to the $600 epipen problem.

DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!)

[tablespoon]

> DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!)

Yeah, the answer is $600 is far too expensive.

IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation (e.g. limiting the profit margin on generics or even drugs more generally), or some kind of boutique government-owned generic maker tasked with being a manufacturer of last resort and selling generics at its cost (which should be higher than a non-price-gouging private company, so it works to put a price-ceiling on those companies and also acts as insurance against unavailability).

[ur-whale]

> IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation

IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation.

If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine.

[tablespoon]

> IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation.

> If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine.

I doubt it. IIRC, EpiPens are off-patent, and the only thing holding back competition is the need to demonstrate the competing product is safe, reliable, and equivalent. I even believe a competitor product was withdrawn from the market because it was delivering an unreliable dosage.

So if you remove the regulations, you'll probably get a flood of corner-cutting crap that's dangerous. That's likely especially true for an emergency use item like an EpiPen, which literally sits on a shelf unused unless there's an emergency (leaving a big opportunity to sell defective items undetected by consumers).

[wizzwizz4]

The computer market is not particularly regulated, yet we still have international big tech monopolies stifling competition. I think the US simultaneously needs:

• less regulation, to reduce barriers-to-entry

• more regulation, to allow competition

Normally, I'd be concerned about reduced regulations having safety implications, but the existing situation is already unsafe.

[waterhouse]

Patents are a big part of how the stifling is done. Getting rid of them, or at least cutting their term by a factor of 3-4, would help a great deal.

[kragen]

While I agree that patents are net harmful, especially in software, if you cut their term by a factor of 4 to 5 years, many of them would expire before being granted, which would be a hard policy to defend.

[denton-scratch]

Not with epinephrine, because it's out-of-patent. For clarity, I very much dislike the patent system.