← Back to context

Comment by refurb

1 day ago

Blame the FDA on that one.

The FDA's policy for the last couple of decades is that mixtures of mirror images will not get FDA approval unless there is a strong rationale for it.

Racemic mixture of ketamine was approved decades ago. If you want a new indication for ketamine, you will need to get approval for a single mirror image, as the FDA won't approve the old drug.

They did this because there are numerous examples of racemic mixture drugs having increased side effects from the less active mirror image, so the FDA decided no more racemic approvals.

My guess is your insurer would be happy to pay for the old version, but your doctor is heavily incentivized to use the new version as the markup on the drug is much, much higher.

Thalidomide being one of the more notable ones (though apparently neither chirality is truly safe)

>but your doctor is heavily incentivized to use the new version as the markup on the drug is much, much higher.

I don't think it is normal/usual for doctors to receive any benefits or profits from which drugs they prescribe. Other than golf outings with the drug company reps? Is there something I'm missing?

  • For drugs administered in office, doctors can markup the cost and insurance pays it. Even Medicare pays 4.3% extra.

    For oncologists, it’s most of the revenue for their office since consults pay very little.

    The money made on administering $5 worth of ketamine is far less than a $1500 bottle of eskatamine.