HIV drug prices surged by 5,000%! Are pharmaceutical companies’ profits more valuable than human lives?

On February 16, according to the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS, strongly criticized pharmaceutical companies for placing profit above human life, and stated that inequality is undermining HIV prevention efforts—particularly severely in Africa. “Profits earned by pharmaceutical companies from drugs must be regulated,” Byanyima said. “Daraprim is a life-saving drug for people living with HIV. In 2015, Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. raised Daraprim’s price by 5,000%—a decision that sparked widespread controversy and laid bare the ‘greed of the pharmaceutical industry.’ Daraprim treats toxoplasmosis—a relatively rare but especially dangerous infection that can be fatal for individuals with severely compromised immune systems, such as people living with HIV or certain cancer patients. The HIV Medicine Association of the United States stated that raising the drug’s price from $13.50 to $750 per tablet was unreasonable for medically vulnerable patient populations and would damage the healthcare environment. Yet Martin Shkreli defended the move, arguing: “We need to make profits on our drugs because developing new medicines requires enormous funding.”

On November 18, China’s State Anti-Monopoly Bureau was officially inaugurated. What significance does its establishment hold, and what role will it play?

The challenge faced by state attorneys general—collaborating with state government departments to obtain evidence—is particularly evident in the government’s lawsuit against Ovcon. In that case, although the Medicaid-related documents at issue were highly likely to pertain to the defendant, the court held that, because Medicaid agencies were not parties to the suit brought by the state attorney general, the defendant could not obtain those documents through the attorney general. In practice, communication between state prosecutors and Medicaid agencies did not demonstrate that the prosecuting agency—as plaintiff—had actual capacity to access Medicaid data. Thus, the court ruled that Medicaid agencies should be subpoenaed to produce evidence under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which imposes a duty on non-party entities to provide evidence. [9] The plaintiff (i.e., the state attorney general) operates independently from administrative control—not from the agency holding the evidence (i.e., the Medicaid agency). They are not consolidated into a single entity merely for evidence-gathering purposes. The Ovcon court held that state agencies are independent entities distinct from their heads; the state attorney general is an independent office not subject to the governor’s authority. Even in Alaska and the District of Columbia—where attorneys general are appointed by governors—the court will not incorporate state agencies into litigation unless the defendant presents compelling evidence. Although this may seem like a relatively minor issue to the outside world, whether a state must produce documents held by all its governmental agencies could significantly impact litigation costs across states. Communication with external agencies is extremely difficult. Even where channels exist between state attorneys general and other government agencies, states carefully weigh the evidentiary burden imposed on their agencies when initiating lawsuits. While the Ovcon case remains obscure, others are not. The high-profile Vyera case has recently placed state law squarely in the spotlight. New York’s 2015 investigation into ‘Pharma Bro’ ultimately expanded to include the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and six other states—and ended in victory. New York targeted Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera over their 2015 acquisition of Daraprim, a long-standing, low-cost treatment for toxoplasmosis. After acquiring the drug, Vyera raised its price fortyfold and blocked generic competitors from entering the market. Following Vyera’s merger completion in December 2021, multiple states and the FTC jointly sued Shkreli in court. State laws—including provisions for injunctions, fines, and personal liability of corporate executives—played a pivotal role in the case. [10] 'If not now, when?' Judge Denise Cote, renowned for her efficiency, characterized Shkreli as the ruthless architect of an anti-competitive scheme—even continuing to control Vyera as its majority shareholder from behind bars, aided by prohibited phone calls. The court found that 'in response to public condemnation, Shkreli doubled down on his obstinacy.' He refused to change his business practices and even declared that prices should have been raised even higher. The judge remained unmoved by Shkreli’s admission that he had raised prices—but denied engaging in anti-competitive conduct—and unimpressed by his claim that he had never signed any agreement restricting competition.

Martin Shkreli violated lifetime pharma industry ban, FTC and states say

19 hours ago

Federal regulators seek to hold Martin Shkreli in contempt for violating his lifetime pharmaceutical industry ban via stock trading. The FTC and seven states request fines equal to his profits from pharma stocks since February 2022.

reuters

2026-10-13

Martin Shkreli violated lifetime pharma industry ban, FTC and states say

Martin Shkreli violated lifetime pharma industry ban, FTC and states say

FAQ