Lipitor has had an ANDA filed for a generic version by Watson, yes. However, the law allows Pfizer to grant a 180 day exclusivity contract to a manufacturer of their choice (in this case Watson) for the ANDA. To those affected by this drug going generic: IT HAS NOT GONE TRULY GENERIC YET! Wait until the 180 day exclusivity contract expires (in 179 days) and the true "invisible hand" will take effect in the market.

In the meantime, you're most likely going to need to get the BRAND NAME Lipitor for it to be covered to the fullest extent by your pharmacy benefit manager ("insurance company")! These PBMs get rebates (NOT kickbacks) to lower the cost of the brand-name drug, so it's financially advantageous to the member to not cover the generic yet. Here's why:

Lipitor (brand) 90ct bottle = $550 retail, minus $330 in rebates = $220 total cost of drug.
atorvastatin by Watson (generic) 90ct bottle = $530 retail, minus $0 in rebates (Watson doesn't offer any) = $550 total cost of drug.
(These amounts are fictional, however they represent true real-world scenarios.)

Disclaimer: I work for one of the US' largest Pharmacy Benefit Managers in the Clinical Review department. We had a meeting today regarding all of our Medicare Part-D patients and how they're affected by this specific drug going generic. No suits were involved and the members are receiving the best possible drug savings until the exclusivity contract expires. Once it expires the new generics will be placed on the tier-1 ("generic") copay structure.

$1.20 is better than $1.25 since it is a lower price and considering the RedBox doesn't take cash, it doesn't matter much where you round it to.

It does seem a bit skewed towards Apple with the exclusion of the Samsung Galaxy.
As for the iPhone 2G, the graph clearly does not indicate that it has current support updates. This is NOT a timeline, it is a bar graph, so read it appropriately. The support was terminated shortly after the second year, which was early 2010. It is now late 2011 - so support updates for it have been missing for over a year and a half.

I recommend not going to Walgreens or CVS - go to an independent pharmacy, you'll get better care there anyways and cheaper prices. Then, don't get Proventil or Proair, get Ventolin! Ventolin is the cheapest and Glaskosmith-Kline has $15 rebate checks they give to pharmacies sometimes (and no, I don't work for ANY Pharmas). You also may want to check their website because they have programs you can enroll in to get your meds for cheap/free, plus they may even have some coupons you can use there.

This is actually extremely old news. A treaty was signed over a decade ago to ban various uses of CFCs in phases. The OTC epinephrine inhalers were pulled off of the market by the manufacturer some time ago due to a different reason (which I forget), then they decided to not restart production on it because CFC inhalers would be banned as of 1/1/2010.

Anyone that has asthma will tell you that things dramatically changed for them in 2010 when their old albuterol (fast-acting, for emergencies) inhalers were reformulated to not include CFCs (dubbed HFA, aka Hydrofluoroalkane) . Most HFA-using patients state that they cannot "feel" the aerosol or that it doesn't work nearly as well as the CFC-based ones.*

Point being, CFC inhalers haven't been around for a couple of years and we knew they were going away over a decade ago!

(*From my professional experience.)

Watching the section of the video you're referring to, he specifically answers that the reason they are third is because Google does a VERY good job at finding the ACTUAL product, versus (yet another) product comparison website. He states that if you were to use those other product comparison sites to find the same product, you will find they rank the product results (what website the product is ACTUALLY sold at) in their own method. Basically, Google does the best job, but doesn't make it the first link.

Say what you will, but I think we all know by now that Google tends to have the best search algorithms out there, mostly because they hire the best-of-the-best and because that is what the company was founded on.

(This comment is in regards to the first episode of Stargate Universe, in the event that you're curious.)

That's what most people said about XP when Vista was on the horizon.

... Slider phones! ZOMG, a hardware keyboard on a PHONE?!

Haven't we known this since 802.11 came out? Pringles can, anyone?

Actually, they overcharge because of the formula that the insurance companies use to determine the "contract price." If the price is higher - that they bill the insurance - the amount they receive in reimbursement will be closer to what they deserve.

Since I work in pharmacy and have also worked for a few pharmacy benefit managers, I will provide an example of how they bill:
U&C (Usual and customary): $100
Ingredient cost: $50
Gross amount due: $50

Based on the numbers submitted, the insurance will now reimburse the provider $58. Had the provider billed for less, they would receive (a lot) less in reimbursement. There are upper limits to all drugs/procedures/devices/etc, but larger issues come into play, like what "network" the provider is in (it's not just "in" or "out" of network for the provider - they get reimbursed LESS the smaller the company is). Walgreens, for example, recently just refused to continue taking pharmacy insurance provided by Express Scripts because Express scripts refused to pay Walgreens the amount that was DEMANDED. Walgreens ALREADY gets paid at LEAST 10% more than any other pharmacy. (Express Scripts provides (at least) 20% of the nations pharmacy benefits.)

The point being, the insurance companies have it backwards, but larger companies should not be able to abuse their power to leverage higher reimbursement rates. If something costs $100, then it costs $100 no matter where you go - the reimbursement should remain the same. (Yes, I know you can buy in bulk when you're a larger company, but that tends to squash small to mid-size businesses.)

If you think that hearing aids are expensive, consider the cost of cochlear implants. Cochlear implants cost tens of thousands of dollars, the surgery costs nearly $100k, and the external device (like a hearing aid, but a little larger) costs over $10k. That's just for one ear and the hearing quality is like 1/10th of a person with cochlear hair! Plus they only last for about 20 years (including the internal device) depending on the model and some other circumstances. $8k for a hearing aid is a steal.

No. It does not. Also, you can still install the Tricorder app by finding the APK on the web, checking 'Unknown Sources' (Settings->Applications), then issuing: 'adb install tricorder.apk' while your phone is connected to a PC that has the ADB drivers installed. Otherwise you can download the APK to your phone and use Astro Filemanager to install it.

You must be new here.

Does this discovery have any affect on HIV research?