Free Markets and Flu - A Deadly Combo

[DinoDoc]

That's what made it classic.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

I also linked an article from the Wall Street Journal that echoed the Times, but I see by your "rebuttal" of the Times article the WSJ will be duly ignored as well.

Thx Ned, this notion that vaccines are produced and sold in a free market is *******

The Wall Street Journal article is clearly only describing the vacine market in general, it makes no claims whatsoever regarding flu vaccine specificly. The CDC articles I posted link to, definately refute the Time's claims. The only crap going on here is the suggestion that price controls and government regulation have a major role in the current flu vaccine shortage. The only part of the market that price have price controls involved is significantly under 10%, and all the flu companies can choose not to sell to that source and only sell to others if its unprofitable.

[GePap]

Word of advice Mordoch- arguing with Ned is generally counterroductive: better to enjoy the grand mystical qualities of the alternate universe his mind inhabits.

As for profit motive and health care- certaint things are to important to be based on the profit motive- reason why state no longer use private sector armies to defend themselves. Health care is like defense and highways: too important to the body politic to be left to the private sector to run.

[Mr. Harley]

Hello, Ned - read my post on why I delayed having my little girl vaccinated (supporting Mordoch's post prior to him making it ) - the recommending the flu vaccine for infants is NEW, and after debacles like the anthrax vaccine, possible issues like mecury-based preservatives, et al I chose to get it, but to wait until her body was slightly more mature.

However, why are the vaccine companies supplying the government if they are losing money??? The US government cannot compel them to sell them a product, just like they cannot compel a physician to take Medicare (there are rare exceptions, no red herrings PLEASE). They can state that unless you do not charge add-on fees you may not accept Medicare, but at this point they cannot make you accept it. Some physicians have opted it, most have not, for economic reasons.

Nobody has posted any data concerning market consolidation in the vaccine manufacturing arena between 1986 and 1993. If Ned's, Berzerker's, et al supposition was correct, they should have been NO consolidation, or at most minimal, in that market during those years, as they had received protection from the current wave of lawsuits, and it was the pre-Hillary free market.

However, there was extensive consolidation going on in American markets at the time, expecially in the pharma arena. Did the vaccine industry consolidate less, or more, than the rest of their industry. Please note, if my supposition is correct you should have seen more consolidation due to market forces, i.e. a mature market where most patents have expired.

I've just done an hour of searches, no luck on the numbers but here's an interesting, I would suspect unbiased link. http://www.vaccinealliance.org/home/Resources_Documents/Immunization_Focus/Download/update_2.php It turns out that the US companies are not, at least for many of the traditional children's vaccines, competitive any more. Anybody heard about India's pharma industry? So the evidence here supports my mature market hypothesis, with a vengeance. We have a mature, non-patented product, the US manufacturers lose their WHO and UNICEF sales to lower cost foreign generics manufacturers, and you have massive consolidation in the US market. Production levels would support nothing else. I at least found a subsidary source supporting my hypothesis, any of you unregulated free market types willing to find a year-number of manufacturer graph to show I'm wrong? I tried, see what you can find.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

The Wall Street Journal article is clearly only describing the vacine market in general, it makes no claims whatsoever regarding flu vaccine specificly.

And flu vaccines aren't included in the vaccine market? If there were ~25 vaccine companies 30 years ago with many making multiple vaccines, then policies that drove that number down to a handfull would have eliminated a number of companies that made flu vaccines as one of their products. True? And the result? Government policies reduced flu vaccine production...

How can you argue that policies resulting in the elimination of ~20 vaccine makers over the years would not impact flu vaccine production? Here's a relevant question: were there significant vaccine shortages in the 1970's? Why do we see these shortages near the end of Clinton's 2 terms in office?

The CDC articles I posted link to, definately refute the Time's claims. The only crap going on here is the suggestion that price controls and government regulation have a major role in the current flu vaccine shortage.

Yeah, such crap. And the CDC article you linked didn't refute anything. The WSJ article claimed the Clinton's wanted %100 control of the vaccine supply and compromised for roughly a third...at "negotiated" prices. That didn't include what state and local governments buy, so if the WSJ article is accurate, it isn't far fetched to say ~%50 of the vaccine supply was under government control in the early 90's. What year(s) was the CDC referencing?

The only part of the market that price have price controls involved is significantly under 10%, and all the flu companies can choose not to sell to that source and only sell to others if its unprofitable

Tell me, how much of these vaccines are bought and distributed
by all levels of government? Do you uinderstand what it means when these articles say the government "negotiated" for lower prices? If there is not enough profit to be made making vaccines - one of the factors in the diminishing vaccine supply - why? Because government "negotiated" with vaccine makers for lower prices. Government promised legislation to provide some protection for vaccine makers against liability - protection since subverted by trial lawyers. If vaccine makers were charging enough to make the endeavor profitable, the Clintons et al would have been screaming bloody murder about those evil pharmaceutical companies gouging the little people.

I don't know if socialists create such shortages as an excuse to nationalise industries but it is dis-ingenuous for liberal Democrats to complain about a shortage they helped create. And the notion we have a free market in vaccine production is nonsensical...

[Berzerker]

Thirty years ago, there were 25 vaccine makers. Now, because of low profit margins, complex manufacturing and a challenging regulatory environment, there are five.

"There are a whole array of barriers keeping companies from the business," said Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and a member of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which reports to the Health and Human Services Department.

"And there are no simple solutions," Schaffner said.

Vaccine production is difficult because immunizations are made from live viruses or bacteria, which are trickier to work with than the chemicals used to make most drugs. Profit margins are low, and there's less repeat business than in the drug industry.

The risk of litigation is also higher because unlike drugs, vaccines are given to healthy people. So although a cancer patient may be willing to endure severe side effects from a drug, the same doesn't hold true for someone getting a flu vaccine.

"The safety challenges in this industry are extraordinary," Schaffner said.

In 1986, the government set up the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which compensated people for injuries or conditions that might have been caused by vaccines recommended for children. The program was intended to provide an incentive for manufacturers to continue making vaccines. Yet the vaccines for polio, chickenpox and measles/mumps/rubella have a single manufacturer each, partly because the government buys 56 percent of childhood vaccines and caps the prices it will pay.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7538220.htm

And that program to provide manufacturers with an incentive to continue vaccine production was subverted by trial lawyers who found a loophole in the law.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
From professionnal experience in the pharmaceutical industry, and other industries (automotive, books, retail), I can tell that the prices controlled by a government NEVER results in losses for the companies concerned. Price control is a very technical subject, and the cost accounting can be, and was, a very creative discipline. When it was suppressed in France, (in 1983?), for all products except the pharmaceutical drugs reimbursed by the social security, it resulted in a decrease of the price index. For the drugs under control, it is generally a trade off between products enabling the companies to show attractive profits.

The recently authorized *generic products* made only of the active molecule, provides an illustration of how it works really. The generic products are generally sold 20% below the trade marked product. Most of the trade marked products have decreased their price by 20%, after a very short time (about 3 months).

Davout, but read that statute again. The prices are set regardless of cost to produce. THAT can result in killing the vaccine industry to the extent that the price is less than the cost to produce.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Mordoch

You're not very bright are you? I'll repeat this for about the third time. The 40% figure involves other vaccines which are ordinarily given to children. Only a small number of flu vaccines were given to children since until just this year, it was not generally recommended as necessary by various government agencies. This means that its under 10% for flu vaccines being purchased by any governmental sources period. I've also demonstrated with 100% certainty that vaccine makers are not compelled to sell to the government, so they would not do so if they actually lost money doing so due to price controlls. Read my links and posts in this thread again for details.

I read your link. It was to a 2000 press release. Obviously, the situation has changed in a couple of years.

I agree, there is no requirement to sell to the government. However, the prices can be set so low as to strip the profit from the industry - driving out producers and forcing the rest to produce less than the estimated requirements so that they do not run the risk of a loss through overproduction.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Word of advice Mordoch- arguing with Ned is generally counterroductive: better to enjoy the grand mystical qualities of the alternate universe his mind inhabits.

As for profit motive and health care- certaint things are to important to be based on the profit motive- reason why state no longer use private sector armies to defend themselves. Health care is like defense and highways: too important to the body politic to be left to the private sector to run.

And, GePap, I am sure you DO understand that the REASON we have such good weapons is that NONE of them are actually designed and produced by the government!

Take the profits out of weapons, and what you get is the Russian military.

[Ned]

Shawn, all child vaccines are provided by the State or Feds under the Hillary Clinton program. All these vaccines are purchased by the CDC at 1993 prices (not negotiated). Because there is no profit (or very little profit) in selling to the government, they only make what is estimated. That is why there is a shortage for children if the Flu exceeds expectations.

When a particular region is hard hit and they need more, they providers do not go to the companies to buy more. They go to the CDC who then move doses from regions where they have a surplus or if they really need more, directly buy the doses from the companies. Hasn't anyone found it strange that the CDC is moving Flu vaccine around the country rather than having doctors simply ordering the vaccine from the drug companies.

The vaccine market seems to be dominated by the CDC. There does not seem to be a real free market in vaccines.

Shawn, I was unable to view that link, but I don't think the number of companies producing vaccine has anything to do with shortages. Shortages almost never occur outside of price regulated markets because pricing affects both demand and supply.

When one looks at America's vaccine market, one does see price controls. It is ludicrous to deny that the Hillary Clinton price controls are not causing the shortages.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mordoch -
Yeah, such crap. And the CDC article you linked didn't refute anything. The WSJ article claimed the Clinton's wanted %100 control of the vaccine supply and compromised for roughly a third...at "negotiated" prices. That didn't include what state and local governments buy, so if the WSJ article is accurate, it isn't far fetched to say ~%50 of the vaccine supply was under government control in the early 90's. What year(s) was the CDC referencing?

2001, which certainly refutes it, the whole point that the articles you cited were trying to make was that the 1990s saw the reduction of companies making the flu vaccine. The point is that it may be a high percentage with vaccines that children are ordinarily the ones being vaccinated for the disease, but with the flu this is not the situation at all, I also linked to policies explaining the CDC views in the past which created this situation. The CDC report includes both federal and state sources, I also made it extremely clear that none of this nonsense about negotiated prices not being part of this figure applies. Your claim about vaccine companies losing money selling vaccine to the government still makes no sense since the companies DO refuse to sell to the government in cases where they lose money doing so.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Shawn, all child vaccines are provided by the State or Feds under the Hillary Clinton program. All these vaccines are purchased by the CDC at 1993 prices (not negotiated). Because there is no profit (or very little profit) in selling to the government, they only make what is estimated. That is why there is a shortage for children if the Flu exceeds expectations.

When a particular region is hard hit and they need more, they providers do not go to the companies to buy more. They go to the CDC who then move doses from regions where they have a surplus or if they really need more, directly buy the doses from the companies. Hasn't anyone found it strange that the CDC is moving Flu vaccine around the country rather than having doctors simply ordering the vaccine from the drug companies.

The vaccine market seems to be dominated by the CDC. There does not seem to be a real free market in vaccines.

Shawn, I was unable to view that link, but I don't think the number of companies producing vaccine has anything to do with shortages. Shortages almost never occur outside of price regulated markets because pricing affects both demand and supply.

When one looks at America's vaccine market, one does see price controls. It is ludicrous to deny that the Hillary Clinton price controls are not causing the shortages.

What fantasy dreamworld to you live in anyways! NONE of the articles in this thread make that claim. Over 90% of the Flu vaccines are sold in the US directly to the private market, and they can be sold to the highest bidder by the flu suppliers.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
I read your link. It was to a 2000 press release. Obviously, the situation has changed in a couple of years.

Based on what evidence???!!! The Washington Times article is based on the premise that this situation has existed since 1993, if it just changed this last year with the changes in flu shot recomendations, in which case it wouldn't have been that decisive since with a shortage flu vaccine suppliers would sell to the higher paying private market first. The whole point of the Washington Times claim is that since 1993, a situation has existed where the government buys most of the flu vaccine and makes it unprofitable for the flu vaccine companies with price controls. This premise is clearly factually wrong.

I think unless someone else posts here desiring further info, I've proved my case decisively here and don't need to spend further time on this debate. Other than Berzerker and Ned, who seem to treat the Washington Times like its the Bible and they are taking every word in it as the indisputable truth no matter what the evidence against it, everyone else seems to be persuaded here.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

2001, which certainly refutes it

No it doesn't. The CDC figure of %10 doesn't explain what has been happening over the last 30 years to the vaccine industry and the CDC only claims it had no involvement with %90 of the vaccine supply, that doesn't mean government everywhere was involved with only %10 of the supply.

the whole point that the articles you cited were trying to make was that the 1990s saw the reduction of companies making the flu vaccine. The point is that it may be a high percentage with vaccines that children are ordinarily the ones being vaccinated for the disease, but with the flu this is not the situation at all

First, it is illogical to presume that the Clinton WH program had control of ~%33 (after wanting %100!!!!!!! Did you see that? What does that tell vaccine producers?) of the vaccine supply for children but little or no control over flu vaccines. Second, a company that produces vaccines for several childhood diseases beset with price controls on some or most of those vaccines (even if flu is not among them) is faced with a decision - drop their vaccine industry because of government regulations (which obviously would include their flu vaccine) or continue making vaccines. And even if they merely dropped the vaccines subject to price controls, that is no guarantee price controls on their flu vaccine won't be imposed if they weren't already enacted into law. Many companies dropped making vaccines and every article I've seen cites low profits and high liability as well as price controls (which explains the low profits). Btw, the reports linked in this thread cite shortages in a number of vaccines in recent years, not just the flu.

I also linked to policies explaining the CDC views in the past which created this situation. The CDC report includes both federal and state sources, I also made it extremely clear that none of this nonsense about negotiated prices not being part of this figure applies. Your claim about vaccine companies losing money selling vaccine to the government still makes no sense since the companies DO refuse to sell to the government in cases where they lose money doing so.

And what happens when they refuse? Politicians and bureaucrats scream bloody murder and threaten companies, that's what government always does. If you don't "agree" to do what the politicians "ask" you to do, you anger people who can screw you.

I'll quote the bold part of my last post again:

the government buys 56 percent of childhood vaccines and caps the prices it will pay.

How does that square with your interpretation of the CDC article? How can you claim there are no price controls on vaccines or that if there are, they have no impact on the number of companies or the supply? C'mon Mordoch! It's one thing to debate the level of blame that should be divied up to every player involved, but it's ludicrous to argue that the vaccine industry exists in a free market.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker

How does that square with your interpretation of the CDC article? How can you claim there are no price controls on vaccines or that if there are, they have no impact on the number of companies or the supply? C'mon Mordoch! It's one thing to debate the level of blame that should be divied up to every player involved, but it's ludicrous to argue that the vaccine industry exists in a free market.

Take a reading comprehension class already! 56% is an average presumably involving all types of vaccines if accurate. Flu vaccines have a vastly lower percentage of under 10%. Basicly you're trying to claim that the CDC is continuing to lie under a Republican adminstration, while the Washington Times with minimal citation to support their statistics is the only source anyone can trust. (If the CDC was simply lying before, you'd think they would have issued a new press release to clarify these facts in order to bolster the conservative's case by now.) I looked for someone under flu vaccines and simply didn't see anything more recent.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Mordoch

What fantasy dreamworld to you live in anyways! NONE of the articles in this thread make that claim. Over 90% of the Flu vaccines are sold in the US directly to the private market, and they can be sold to the highest bidder by the flu suppliers.

Read the MF statute, Mordoch. All children's flu doses provided by either the Feds or the States have to be purchased at the price set by the statute. According to Shawn, Flu vaccines have only recently been provided to young children. Doctors and clinics can of course buy the vaccines directly from the manufacturers at the going rate, or get them for free from the Feds or the State, when children are involved. So, when we talk about shortages, we are more likely talking about shortages of low cost or free government-supplied vaccine doses and not the high cost vaccines that can be purchased in the private market.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned So, when we talk about shortages, we are more likely talking about shortages of low cost or free government-supplied vaccine doses and not the high cost vaccines that can be purchased in the private market.

If you're curious, states negotiate their own rates and basicly can't buy them period right now. You also generally can't walk into a Wallmart or other private institutions, who happen to be willing to pay higher prices than anyone else in many cases, and get a flu shot. You're plain not paying attention to what the current situation is.

[Berzerker]

Shawn, your last link doesn't work.

Mordoch -

Take a reading comprehension class already!

I'll make that my New Years' resolution.

56% is an average presumably involving all types of vaccines if accurate. Flu vaccines have a vastly lower percentage of under 10%.

You're basing that %10 on what the CDC claims to control (in 1 specific year?), not on what all levels of government have controlled over the years. And when the CDC claims %90 of the supply is in "private" hands, that doesn't mean the %90 goes straight from the producer to the retailer to the consumer. It could mean some of it goes from the producer to a government bureaucracy other than the CDC to the private health care provider.

And you still don't understand the point, if %56 of your production is sold to the government at prices set by the government thereby making it less profitable for you to produce your stock, the result is one more reason to get out of the vaccine business. It doesn't matter if flu vaccines are controlled more or less than other vaccines, only that you are in a "market" where government buys more than half of your stock at prices set by the government. So if you produce vaccines like tetanus and flu and the government buys up half your production at rates determined by the government, it doesn't matter which of your vaccines are subject to the controls, you'll have a good reason to get the hell out of the vaccine business and produce something else.

Basicly you're trying to claim that the CDC is continuing to lie under a Republican adminstration, while the Washington Times with minimal citation to support their statistics is the only source anyone can trust.

Gee Mordoch, there are other options than lying. They could be talking about only what the CDC controls, they could be mistaken, or maybe you're just mis-interpreting the CDC article. Every article I can find at google has the same message - the recent (2000 and beyond) shortages in vaccines are a result of several factors among which are price controls and liability costs driving down profitability. But you seem to think that government price controls on %56 of the vaccine supply has nothing to do with why we've seen ~25 vaccine makers drop to ~3.

From your link http://www.cdc.gov/programs/immun9.htm

The VFC program is CDC's largest public/private partnership. The program currently serves about 40% of the population aged birth - 18 years with VFC supplied vaccine totaling $798 M in CY 2002.

And from another of your links: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r2k1103.htm

State health departments have purchased 2 million doses of influenza vaccine through a CDC-negotiated contract with two vaccine manufacturers. State and local health departments may purchase vaccine through other mechanisms as well.

For this season only, CDC has contracted for the production of an additional 9 million doses of vaccine to help make sure there is enough vaccine for people at highest risk of complications from flu.

That's 11 million out of ~75 million doses just through the CDC and that doesn't even include doses bought by other federal, state, and local agencies. Even the CDC says other government agencies make arrangements with producers. Still wanna claim government controls only %10 of the supply?

More: http://www.cdc.gov/programs/immun9.htm

Legislation being proposed in 2004 would remove the price caps on vaccines and allow Td and DT to be purchased with VFC funds again. Also, the legislation will expand VFC vaccine access to include underinsured children seeking immunization services in state and local public health clinics.

Hmm...price controls to be lifted and vaccine acces to be expanded. I wonder why price controls are being lifted if they have no impact...

Increased VFC funds are being provided in 2003 so that CDC can expand the national stockpile program. A 6 month supply of all recommended pediatric vaccines will greatly reduce the potential public health consequences associated with supply disruptions.

Which I assume means an even larger percentage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Mordoch
If you're curious, states negotiate their own rates and basicly can't buy them period right now. You also generally can't walk into a Wallmart or other private institutions, who happen to be willing to pay higher prices than anyone else in many cases, and get a flu shot. You're plain not paying attention to what the current situation is.

The statute requires states to pay no more than the statute price for children's vaccines. There is no choice here.

I haven't tried to get a vacination for me personally, so I don't know.

I have no idea why any clinic would pay for vaccine that it can get for free from the government. But there obviously does appear to be a shortage of free vaccine.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned


The statute requires states to pay no more than the statute price for children's vaccines. There is no choice here.

I haven't tried to get a vacination for me personally, so I don't know.

I have no idea why any clinic would pay for vaccine that it can get for free from the government. But there obviously does appear to be a shortage of free vaccine.

Ok here's absolutely conclusive proof that the premise of your argument is BS.

Flu vaccine is becoming a hot commodity, with the tiny vials selling for up to $300, 2 times the normal price, in some parts of the country.

At the beginning of the season, manufacturers on average charged $85 for a vaccine containing 10 doses.

Things aren't quite so bad in Colorado. State health officials recently paid $165 a vial, nearly double the early-season $85.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...840354,00.html

In other words, Flu vaccine makers can charge whatever they want, and can actually make a killing on the vaccine. If they were losing money selling to the feds, they would not choose to do so.

Another article in which the State Attorney General is making noises about price gouging, but is talking about a state law that could apply to any commodity such as gas in a shortage, and which lists prices within the article.

A 10-dose vial of flu vaccine, which sold for $40 to $80 in October, is being offered to health agencies this week for up to $215...

As vaccine supplies dwindle, demand for flu shots remains unusually high so late in the flu season, which runs from October to May, health officials say. The U.S. government has stepped in to purchase 625,000 flu shots for distribution to state public health agencies, but private companies also are looking to unload vaccine.

Health departments in several states have received offers of flu vaccine for sale at significantly inflated prices, such as $165 a vial from an Arkansas company and $215 a vial from a California company.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...rice+gouging++

Give it up! Clearly states ordinarily have to pay market prices for flu vaccines, and the flu vaccine makers can charge whatever the hell they want. Since flu makers are never compelled to sell to the government, if they couldn't make money doing so, they would refuse to sell to any government agency implementing price controls that would cause them to sell each vial at a loss, and just sell to private institutions instead.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker

That's 11 million out of ~75 million doses just through the CDC and that doesn't even include doses bought by other federal, state, and local agencies. Even the CDC says other government agencies make arrangements with producers. Still wanna claim government controls only %10 of the supply?

In other words, in ordinary years the supply remains far lower than 10%, this year is anomaly which didn't affect flu maker's decisions when they decided how much vaccine to make for this year. More importantly, I just shot the price control argument completely to hell with the articles I just posted.

[Mordoch]

Just to drive a final stake through the heart of the price control argument, here's a case in which the State of Georgia agreed to pay twice the usual price for what turned out to be non-existant flu vaccine.

With the $1.65 million purchase, the state health director's foray into the murky vaccine market was not normal procedure, according to Toomey spokesman Jed Nitzberg. Usually, Georgia's 19 health districts purchase their own vaccine from various wholesalers and medical suppliers. But this year's flu crisis had local health officials pleading with Toomey's office to buy more vaccine. So state officials went shopping...

Georgia received photographs of and information about the vaccine shipment, including national drug code numbers, expiration dates and other details. Satisfied that all was in order, the health department reached an agreement Dec. 17 to pay Elliott $1.65 million for 100,000 doses of the vaccine -- twice the usual cost.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/flu/1228flu.html

[Mordoch]

A final article emphesizing how the flu vaccine market is trully pretty much a free market situation rather than one with price controls.

Shot in arm for vaccine industry
By Marsha Austin
Denver Post Business Writer

The world's two major manufacturers of flu vaccine, not public health officials, decide how many doses to manufacture each year and how much consumers will pay.

After years of being overshadowed by more profitable drugs, the vaccine industry is making a recovery that could lead to increased production and innovation, said Len Lavenda, a spokesman for Aventis, one of two major flu vaccine makers.

"The economics of vaccine manufacture have changed," he said.

The once vibrant industry has dwindled to a handful of companies, giving the remaining firms more control over supply and pricing.

As a result, prices have risen from about $2 a dose to $7 or $8 a dose, Lavenda said.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...828104,00.html

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

In other words, in ordinary years the supply remains far lower than 10%, this year is anomaly which didn't affect flu maker's decisions when they decided how much vaccine to make for this year. More importantly, I just shot the price control argument completely to hell with the articles I just posted.

Where did you read in my post that year was an anamoly? I'm quoting from your link, you know, the link you claim proves the CDC has ~%10 or less control? Even your link shows the CDC bought or negotiated for at least %14 of the supply and the CDC says that number has been increasing since 2000-1.

Ok here's absolutely conclusive proof that the premise of your argument is BS.

That isn't proof. Why do you keep ignoring Ned? He has cited the actual law and you just keep dodging him. No one here claimed government buys %100 of the supply with price caps, but you seem to think if you can show a company selling doses at higher rates proves the market is free, i.e., no price controls. In fact, when government walks in and gets doses at negotiated prices, the rest of us get to pay more to make up for the loss. That's how Medicare works, doctors et al don't always receive full re-imbursement for Medicare patients so they shift the cost to paying customers.

The world's two major manufacturers of flu vaccine, not public health officials, decide how many doses to manufacture each year and how much consumers will pay.

The author hasn't been linking your CDC site, not only are we debating with dueling links, you're dueling with yourself.

Just to drive a final stake through the heart of the price control argument, here's a case in which the State of Georgia agreed to pay twice the usual price for what turned out to be non-existant flu vaccine.

Which you just did again. How can you claim government only controls ~%10 of the supply when your own CDC link shows at least %14 and now you post more articles from Colorado and Georgia showing these state/local governments are buying up supply? It ain't a free market when a business sells to politicians.

In other words, Flu vaccine makers can charge whatever they want, and can actually make a killing on the vaccine. If they were losing money selling to the feds, they would not choose to do so.

They can't charge whatever they want when the feds are buying the doses or negotiating the price. And I've explained to you repeatedly that vaccine makers cannot just ignore the government because of what can happen to them if they anger politicians. Don't you grasp the gravity of the WSJ article that pointed out how Bill and Hillary wanted complete control of the vaccine industry back in '93? If you were a vaccine maker and the Prez and her husband were talking like that you'd be running scared. That's partly why some companies continue selling some doses to government agencies (in addition to other considerations). And you're still ignoring the fact that there were ~25 vaccine makers and the reasons why that number has dwindled to ~3. Free market my a$$!

Give it up! Clearly states ordinarily have to pay market prices for flu vaccines, and the flu vaccine makers can charge whatever the hell they want.

I am going to give it up after this, there's just no point in repeating myself when you insist on ignoring facts. That article doesn't prove anything...again... Notice how it mentions the cost of a vial in October and the cost later on in the year? When government/CDC negotiates for vaccine, it does so earlier in the year, not when it has run out of vaccine or is looking to bolster dwindling supplies. If the government "asks" to buy a certain amount, it ostensibly gets that amount. If states seek more doses after the negotiations are over, they don't get the negotiated price. They are no longer getting vaccine from the supply sold to government, they are getting vaccine previously destined for the market.

Btw, you would do well to stop insulting people. You owe Ned an apology for your nastiness...

[Ned]

Mordock, the statute only requires the state to pay the 1993 price when it purchases vaccine for children. Shawn was talking about vaccine for his infant. The state would violate the law, if I read it correctly, if it brought children's vaccine for higher than the 1993 price.

But private physicians, etc., are not the state. They can, if they choose, buy vaccine from anywhere and give it to their patients. It is just that they cannot charge for any vaccine for any child that falls under the Act.

Now, do you see any reason for a shortage of child vaccines?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Notice how it mentions the cost of a vial in October and the cost later on in the year? When government/CDC negotiates for vaccine, it does so earlier in the year, not when it has run out of vaccine or is looking to bolster dwindling supplies. If the government "asks" to buy a certain amount, it ostensibly gets that amount.

I'll give up too since I've proven this to everyone on this forum but you and Ned. The flu vaccine companies can also choose to tell the government to go f*ck themselves and choose to only be willing to deal directly with the states or private companies. Supplying even 14% of the market is not worthwhile for them if they were actually selling at a loss. The only reason flu companies would be willing to negotiate with the government, or agree to sell at a certain price point, is if it is in fact profitable to sell to them since its a large volume purchase they know for certain about early on, (thereby reducing potential business costs to meet the order) or if they are trying to unload vaccine which they can't otherwise sell. The government's negotiating power is quite limited under these circumstances and the situation certainly comes extremely close to being a true free market.

The government can't ordinarily prevent flu companies from selling to different suppliers, and while they can say that the Federal Government will only buy the vaccine at a certain price, the companies are under no obligation to agree to make any sales to the government.

What you've missed for a huge amount of time now is that the number of flu vaccine purchases by the CDC this year is exceptional and far above the average percentage. This situation only occured once it became clear there was a shortage, and did not dictate earlier business decisions by the flu vaccine companies on how much vaccine to make. There is roughly a 6 month lag from when these decisions are made until the product becomes available to the market.

The absolutely most questionable comment by you is that when the government buys some of a product its not a free market. If the government is bidding for the vaccine along with a variety of other states and private organizations, it certainly has the charactoristics of a free market. You seem to fail to understand what the definition of a free market actually is. (Particularly given that in virtually any market you can find some government agencies interested in buying some of the product.)

An unusual thing the CDC did this year was arrange from vaccine from a British company that would not ordinarily be approved for the US market to be approved on this occassion, and then bought the extra flu vaccines they still had around. The British company could have easily refused to agree to such a sale if it didn't make business sense for them, they could have even justified it from a PR standpoint by saying they needed the supply to meet the demand of the British market. This action added to the percentage of CDC bought vaccine for the US in this particular year.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Mordock, the statute only requires the state to pay the 1993 price when it purchases vaccine for children. Shawn was talking about vaccine for his infant. The state would violate the law, if I read it correctly, if it brought children's vaccine for higher than the 1993 price.

I guess virtually everyone state in The United States of America must have broken this law this year, some multiple times. Read the news articles I posted, or do a google search for more examples. Basicly you fail to understand the law, what the Washinton Times was even claiming, not to mention the realities of the current market. Its not really a true price control because all the flu vaccine companies have the option not to agree to the government's set price and only sell to agencies willing to pay more money. Given how the market currently basicly resembles on oligopoly, the flu makers can basicly force the government to change the law and pay them more by all refusing to sell to them period if necessary.

[Ned]

Mordoch, none of the articles you quote say anything about children. The Statute only applies to children. Vaccines for everyone else are not price regulated.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Mordoch, none of the articles you quote say anything about children. The Statute only applies to children. Vaccines for everyone else are not price regulated.

Read more carefully, you're simply wrong. He's the key passage from one of the articles again again.

The first 375 vials came from a Los Angeles company, FFF Enterprises, that charged the state only $70 each - likely cheaper than what the supplier paid, according to manufacturer's sales figures.

When that supplier ran out, the state paid a Houston company $165 a vial, the cheapest price available anywhere, said Benevento of the state health department.

The vaccines the state purchased - another 2,000 doses are expected next week - will be sent to county health departments with the greatest need, all part of the state's Vaccines for Children program, which targets the under- and uninsured.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...840354,00.html

[Berzerker]

I'll give up too since I've proven this to everyone on this forum but you and Ned.

In case you haven't noticed, there are only 3 people debating this and Ned and I are two of them. I've only seen maybe 1 person claim you are right and they didn't offer evidence. But I guess popularity counts more than facts now, that should ensure leftist victories at Apolyton for perpetuity.

I see you are still ignoring the law cited by Ned. Pointing to vaccines that are outside the domain of the price controls as proof there are no price controls at all is illogical.