The Miracle Drug

With the recent economic struggles, many companies are deciding to raise prices on their products so they can be more profitable.  One company that capitalized on this tactic is Questcor.  Questcor only makes money off of one drug that is called Acthar.  This medicine is supposed to help people that have infantile spasms, a condition that can eventually result in death, yet very unlikely.  This article gives a summary of Questcor's tactics.

Questcor is the only company that sells Acthar, because they bought the rights of the drug in 2001.  "In 2007, it raised the price overnight, to more than $23,000 a vial, from $1,650, bringing the cost of a typical course of treatment for infantile spasms to above $100,000".  Since Questcor had a monopoly of this industry, they were able to raise the price of their drug a whopping 14 times above the original price.

14 TIMES!!!!!  To make matters worse, since Acthar is the only medication for infantile spasms, patients with this disease must pay the hefty price.  And to even complicate matters further, Questcor began stating that Acthar is a successful drug for other conditions.  However, since Acthar was created before the Food and Drug Administration required testing to prove that the drug worked, it did not have to be tested.  In other words, people were paying $23,000 a vial for a drug that they didn't know even worked.

What kind of world do we live in where a company can mark up prices 14 times the original and then say that it cures other diseases when there is no proof?  This is absurd!  Recently, insurance companies said they would not pay for Acthar for patients unless it was treating infantile spasms.  This prevents Questcor from selling Acthar for other conditions that there is no proof of the medicine working on.  Despite this, Questcor was able to get away with selling their drug in the first place.

Although we live in tough economic times, nothing warrants a company to completely deceive the public in a maniacal way.  Unfortunately, there are no repercussions for Questcor because they did not break any rules.  This is the reason that the government tries to protect industries from monopolies.  As a country, we NEED to do a better job containing these companies that think they can beat the system.

What repercussions do you think Questcor deserves, if at all?  And do you think tough economic times warrant a company to hike prices this much?  Please comment below.

Social Mobility or Just Another Barrier?

As I begin to think about college, I never feel that the cost of education impacts my ability to attend the school of my choice because my family is financially sound.  However, there are plenty of people that cannot attend college because they cannot afford the hefty price.  In class over this semester, we have discussed social mobility and how education can be one way to improve class status.  Despite this ability to move social classes, early education has begun to dictate the future.  Recently, in middle and high school, affluent kids are receiving even better education than before in comparison to poorer kids.   This sets a baseline for the future and gives less fortunate kids a disadvantage from the very beginning.  In addition, if these less fortunate students are smart enough to get accepted to college, many of them don't have enough money to pay the tuition.  A New York Times article I read echoes this statement.

Three girls in Texas, with financial issues, started taking classes in 8th grade that focused on college-readiness.  The girls felt that these classes would help prevent them from ending up like their parents, not college-educated and with a low-wage job.  In a letter to her school counselor, one of the girls, Angelica Gonzales, said, "'I don't want to work at Walmart'".  Angelica's mom works at Walmart and she sees the constant struggles her mom faces.  These struggles can be attributed to the fact that no one in her family attended college.  As a result, Angelica wants to break this cycle.


The three girls graduated high school in 2008 and they attended Emory, Texas State, and a community college, respectively.  Emory is an excellent school, but Angelica piled up $60,000 in student debt and was not able to finish college because of the financial stress.  Now she works as a clerk in her town's furniture store.  Why is this?  Because she needed money immediately to repay her student loans.  The fact that Angelica ended up as a store clerk after attending Emory questions the ability to move social classes.

Education is supposed to be a way to improve socioeconomic status, but this is becoming increasingly less common.  With the cost of college at an all time high, many people CAN'T afford it.  America prides itself on the idea that people can determine their own destiny and they do not inherit their status from their parents.  Recently, it seems as if social class is hereditary.

It's a shame that people are becoming locked into a social class, but that's the reality.  Unfortunately, there is no solution unless the government provides additional support to defray the cost of college education.  Now, college is more about the ability to pay than the qualifications of the student.  Although it is difficult to grasp, the proof is in the pudding and it does not look promising.  If social mobility is something that the United States really cares about, the government must develop creative solutions or citizens' social class may be pre-determined.

Why hasn't the government done anything to ameliorate this problem? And what do you think is the best way to solve a social mobility issue?  Feel free to leave comments below.

Is it really about the money?

With the recent news of Apple bringing jobs to the US, I was interested in finding out more.  Today in class we had a brief discussion about how Apple has been criticized for having poor working conditions for their workers in China, especially at Foxconn.  I found an article that includes an interview with CEO Tim Cook.

In the article Cook mentions, "Next year, we will do one of our existing Mac lines in the United States."  He also mentioned that  "The glass on this [i]phone is made in Kentucky. And we've been working for years on doing more and more in the United States."  This seems like a great step for Apple because they are creating a significant number of jobs.  However, they have to spend $100 million to do it.  Apple is completely willing to pay this amount because they have a significant amount of cash.  The bigger issue is why couldn't this be done sooner?

Cook believes that since people are not educated on how to manufacture anymore in school in the US, not many people possess the skills necessary to produce an iPhone or Mac.  Is this about education or is it really about money?  Paying a Chinese factory worker is much cheaper than paying an American factory worker.  Although Cook said that Apple felt obligated to make jobs in the US because it is their "home market", is it really just a publicity stunt?  Apple has had controversy about treatment of their workers overseas, so are they trying to clear some of the controversy by importing jobs to the US and treating workers well?


I believe Cook and Apple have good intentions but I'm skeptical and it seems suspicious that Apple is moving jobs to the US all of a sudden.  I own multiple Apple products and have never really thought about the conditions of the workers that created my product.  Quite frankly, as long as I don't know about the conditions, I don't really care, like many other consumers.  And even if I saw that workers were being treated poorly, it would not prevent me from buying Apple's products.  If a company producing shirts or shoes was treating their workers poorly, I may not buy their products, but since Apple's products are revolutionary and no company offers products of such quality, I would continue to buy Apple devices. 

Do you feel that Apple is moving jobs to the US as a publicity stunt? Why?  And does what a company produces affect whether or not a consumer will buy the product if the workers are being teated poorly?

Taking a Rest

This past week, I was watching an NBA game on ESPN and the two commentators were having a debate.  This debate surrounded around the San Antonio Spurs getting fined $250,000 for resting 4 of their 5 starters.  This article explains what happened.

The Spurs had a 6-game road trip in 9 days and had won the first 5 games.  On the last night of the trip, the coach decided to send 4 starters home to San Antonio and not even show up for the game.  Two of these players were older than 35, and needed a rest.  The other two were 30 and 25.  As a result, the NBA decided to fine the Spurs $250,000 because they "did a disservice to the league and our fans".  Really?

The job of a coach is to win the NBA championship.  Greg Popovich, coach of the Spurs, felt like the team would benefit if he sent home a few players to get some extra rest for the upcoming games.  Popovich was simply doing his job.  However, the NBA felt that it was despicable because fans pay to see the star players.

Popovich was definitely justified for sending his players home.  When players are fatigued, they have a higher risk of injury and if one of those players got injured, they might have no chance of winning the championship.  Popovich is paid to win the title, not to satisfy the wants of the league.  Although the league might be angry, coaches have benched stars before without being fined.  Americans LOVE to win.   It's part of American culture.  So why should David Stern, NBA commissioner, punish a coach for doing something that almost comes naturally to him?  The fans just want to see their team win the championship, even if it costs them a game.  No NBA team is going to win every game.

In the past, "The Cleveland Cavaliers rested a healthy James for four straight games at the end of the 2009-10 regular season" and "In the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts rested a healthy Peyton Manning even with an undefeated record late in the 2009 season".  If benching players in games happens often, why should the NBA be allowed to fine teams now?

Do you feel that the NBA should have fined the Spurs for resting 4 of their 5 starters? Why? And do you think certain situations dictate whether a fine is necessary? Feel free to comment below.