Talk:Mylan/Archives/2016

EpiPen pricing controversy

I'm in a rush now but this issue needs to be added. Mylan makes epinephrine autoinjectors aka EpiPens, which are the emergency treatment for severe, potentially-fatal allergic reactions. They've saved a lot of people's lives including children. Since acquiring the decades-old product in 2007, when it was priced at less than $100, they've been steadily raising the price and it's now $640 for people without insurance. Mylan are currently the only manufacturer, and they've been widely criticized for price-gouging, and legislators are speaking of possible investigations (per NYT, below).

• EpiPen Price Rise Sparks Concern for Allergy Sufferers, New York Times 8/22/2016.
• How Mylan Got Away With Its Enormous Price Hike for the EpiPen, Fortune, 8/22/2016.
• Why Did Mylan Hike EpiPen Prices 400%? Because They Could, Forbes, 8/21/2016.
• Mylan’s EpiPen price increases are Valeant-like in size, Shkreli-like in approach, Marketwatch, 8/18/2016.

With multiple, strong sources, this probably needs its own section and should be in the lede. There's also some coverage at EpiPen but probably not enough. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Do any of these sources mention that they are losing patent rights for the pen later this year?

• Mylan claims US ‘too shareholder-centric’ Financial Times, Aug 6, 2016

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Some more good articles:

• How Marketing Turned the EpiPen Into a Billion-Dollar Business Bloomberg, Sep 23, 2015
• Mylan Beats Earnings Estimates on Stronger Sales of EpiPen, Bloomberg Aug 6, 2015

Basically they jacked up the price of epipen to keep earnings on level for their quarterly shareholder report.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• another Two senators urge scrutiny of EpiPen price boost USA Today Aug 23, 2016--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• [1] Senators Demand Mylan Justify EpiPen Price Hikes1, NBC News Aug 22, 2016

•  Done Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Is this a reliable source? They have a number of allegations which I do not immediately see in the article (also not in Heather Bresch).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Epipen issue should be in there but until an actual allegation is made I think that part should be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Content about investigation

Smallbones added the following:

In September 2016, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman began an antitrust investigation into Mylan's sales of EpiPens to New York schools. An initial investigation exposed possible anticompetitive terms in sales contracts that Mylan made with the schools.

References

In my view this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. We are not a newspaper; we don't breathlessly cover blow by blow. We are also WP:NOTGOSSIP - if you actually read the source it is a bunch of "If X, then blah blah". Jon Stewart shredded "if" journalism with regard to Hilary/Obama and Benghazi -- watch this. blah blah blah. It is politics. If there is a finding of antitrust violation of course that goes in. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an anti-trust investigation by the State of New York about a company that has been called before Congress to investigate it's pricing policies. Please do not attempt to own this article. Get a consensus if you want to delete my work.That's all I have to say. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes an investigation. IF. Congress investigated Benghazi too. Keep your pants on and let's see what others say. There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog here. NOTNEWS applies. We don't mention every little thing going on in relation to a subject. Especially not one embroiled in a controversy where a bunch of crap is going to get thrown at the wall. If something comes of the investigation then obviously it should be mentioned but not before. Capeo (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I returned this info to the article as I see no reason that it should not be included. Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not addressed the objections and neither has Smallbones. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted. NOTNEWS is policy for a reason. There's no point in adding something to an article that would be removed later if nothing comes of it. There's no rush. Capeo (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

First off Jytdog, must you treat other editors with such disrespect? Saying that other experienced editors are trying to include gossip and blah, blah, etc. is hardly the way to help us all to work on this project. As for an answer, I have seen this tactic used to keep info out of articles since I have edited a lot of controversial articles in the past. For example, it has been argued again and again that lawsuits can't be included till the final judgement comes in, which can, of course, take many years. It seems to me that you and SB are just in plain old disagreement here and you can't expect to get your way all the time with the reason being that you are the one that is right...cause that's all it is. Gandydancer (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

First off Gandydancer, must you treat other editors with such disrespect? NOTGOSSIP and NOTNEWS are policy for a reason; people grab news that grabs them and stuff it into articles. I have pushed all kinds of pro-Mylan garbage out of this article and related ones and those reverted have said the same as you. Advocates will edit as advocates do. I will continue to edit as I do. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The degree of coverage and the ongoing nature of the story elevates it above the usual news stories. I understand that most major corporations face numerous investigations and frequent convictions for relatively minor offenses. However this story is larger. A Google news search for "Mylan" returns mostly stories about the investigation. TFD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes please see WP:RECENTISM which addresses exactly this phenomenon. More hype about gossip/news doesn't make it any more encyclopedic than barely covered gossip/news. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing that makes this gossip. Search google news for "Mylan antitrust" right now and you'll get a dozen very reliable sources reporting this story. Add that to the Congressional investigation, the Clinton denunciation, the national outcry - this isn't just going to go away. WP;Recentism has nothing to do with this type of material. You might as well say that we can't put anything about the presidential campaign because it is recentism.

jytdog you accused me of violating the 3RR rule by reverting 4 times. Check your math please - you reverted me 4 times, I reverted you 3 times. Please revert your last revision and note that there are 3 folks here who say it should go in and only 2 that support removing it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Recentism is an essay. BTW it is unhelpful to type in a link without saying what I am supposed to find. The "phenomenon" is "where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." I agree and Smallbones et al. have provided provided due weight to the story which does not overwhelm the article. TFD (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. This is UNDUE trivia, and you are arguing for its inclusion - that it be given any weight at all - because there is a big pile of "hot news". That is exactly what RECENTISM is about. Anyway, we'll see how the discussion here evolves. The heart of the matter is the policy WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been informed about your 4 reverts in one day. Let me spell it out for you [2] [3][4] [5] You don't have a consensus to remove the material, rather a majority is against you. Your reference to WP:GOSSIP is just meaningless - there's a dozen reliable sources I could use. WP:NOTNEWS also doesn't apply - it's mainly about whether an article should be written or deleted - this article has been here and will stay here forever. But it is also about weight - 3 lines at the bottom of an article about an antitrust investigation resulting from a national scandal about price-gouging is not a lot of weight. WP:RECENT actually encourages edits like the one I included. So what you have is "I don't like it", 4RR, and an untenable position. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and change it back. I'm done for the night, 3RR ill be posted in the morning if you don't self-revert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Per BRD you should have stood down and talked. Instead you edit warred, and i followed. I will own that. I was the one who opened the discussion. Not you. If you think I will be blocked and you won't, you are clueless. (the most common outcome in cases like this, is protecting the article) And again, the article has been edited by others since either you or I touched it so asking me to self-revert is clueless and meaningless. What is most surprising here is that you are so strangely not open to just allowing discussion to play out here which is our normal way of working out disagreements. I am willing to go with the consensus that develops with time. You are demanding that your edit stand and have no interest in discussion with me or the other folks watching this article (this dif is especially troubling in that regard). It is a profoundly unwikipedian approach. Think about it. The admins at EWN certainly will. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, again you are providing links to articles without any explanation. The essay warns against articles being overwhelmed by current events. It does not say don't mention them and if you think that way then go to WP:RS and remove news media as reliable sources. Incidentally, WP:ESSAYs are not WP:POLICY or WP:GUIDELINEs and hence "have no official status." You can write one yourself about how to write articles about chemical and drug companies and the rest of us can ignore it. TFD (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes TFD I am aware of all that. For the zillionth time the primary issues are WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:UNDUE which are indeed policy. RECENTISM just tries to help people understand NOTNEWS, like essays do. Do not put words in my mouth. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote the passage in one of those articles that says this story should not be added to articles. TFD (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, and this is my last response, as my sense is that you and I are not going to agree and I have no desire to fence with you; we can wait for others to weigh in. But

NOTNEWS: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.

NOTGOSSIP AKA SOAPBOX: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions. Wikipedia article pages (and various technical pages: categories, navboxes, etc.) are off limits for any advocacy. Talk pages, user space pages and essays are venues where you can advocate your opinions provided that they are directly related to the improvement of wikipedia and are not disruptive.

UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

I understand the anger at Mylan and share it, but treating WP like we are covering news of the ongoing investigation is just an abuse of what we are doing here. The AG investigation and Congress's will do their thing. They will find something, or they won't. It is not encyclopedic to record the launch of the investigation, the subpoenas they will send out, the press conferences the AG and Mylan will have as things unfold; this pundit's CRYSTALBALL projections of "what it means" and that one's etc. That is all 24 hour news-cycle internet echo chamber garbage. Think about 10 years from now. No one will care on what date the AG launched their investigation. It is a blip. An UNDUE blip. As I said, I will not be fencing with you TFD. Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Meh, NOTNEWS is generally not for addition of content where that content is already being covered. The Epipen pricing issue is already in the article, and imho this is just an extension of that. On the other hand 'starting an investigation' is a weak basis for inclusion. I dont think NOTNEWS or NOTGOSSIP applies, but I also do not think this rises to the level where it should be in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, now it seems that the belief that adding two lines about the investigation means that I/we also want to include "the subpoenas they will send out, the press conferences the AG and Mylan will have as things unfold; this pundit's CRYSTALBALL projections of "what it means" and that one's etc" in the article. Talk about CRYSTALBALL projections! Jytdog you continue to treat those who disagree with you as though they are just a bunch of dopes or worse. Also, I do not agree with your suggestion that our articles must be written with the perspective of what we will want to see in them 10 years from now. I just spent many months working on the ebola outbreak article where we recorded daily events while cutting back on a frequent basis as well (and it is past time to once again go through the entire article, as I've done many times already). That's how this wonderful encyclopedia works - not like the set that I still have that my dad bought from a traveling salesman when I was nine years old. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Saw this referenced in a talk page I watch. The investigation in question is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the article and is perfectly unobjectionable in the brief addition that is being sought to be added here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• There's no good reason to remove this (Guardian, Wall Street Journal, NBC). This issue is revealing a great deal about pricing in healthcare, and it isn't going to go away. WP:NOTNEWS is intended for things that are a flash in the pan, trivial, routine, or primary news coverage. None of it applies here. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The accusations of bad faith are pretty overwhelming. Nobody thinks this is "going away". This investigation might yield nothing. It might find that the school contracts or other things Mylan did were illegal. The issue is that we don't know yet. In any case we'll continue to see how the discussion unfolds. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty straightforward and obvious thing to add to the article. A company's practices are being investigated. Multiple sources. We don't overemphasize it but we add a reference to it. I can't fathom the vehement objections. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to wait for more discussion. I count the views expressed here as 5 to 2.5 for inclusion. The 0.5 is for Only in death, who I take as a -"meh".

Perhaps 2.5 people don't see the importance of this potential lawsuit, a monopolist (89% of the market) is likely to get sued for using exclusive supplier contracts (a standard element in antitrust lawsuits) made with public schools (the contracts are public records). The total monopoly level revenue is close to a billion dollars per year, for 5-10 years, with triple damages possible. Ignore that if you'd like (I'm not a lawyer). But almost all the usual super reliable sources are reporting on the investigation so we certainly should report on it.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

1) WP is not a democracy; we don't do headcounts. 2) What you wrote there about why this matters, was entirely WP:CRYSTALBALL - "is likely to..." "triple damages possible. Yep, all that is possible. So is nothing. 3) No one is disputing the pile of very reliable sources about the AG opening the investigation or what ~might~ come of it. NOTNEWS directly speaks to that. Directly, and you are not engaging with that policy at all, which is so strange. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't do headcounts when the count is against you. Yet you demand a consensus to include material that you don't like. 5 to 2.5 looks like a consensus to me, given that your objections are WP:GOSSIP, which obviously doesn't apply, WP:RECENT which you obviously haven't read, and WP:NOTNEWS.

The gist of Notnews is "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Given the coverage that has already occurred on Mylan's price-gouging, this will be a standard case in business ethics class for the next couple of decades. So enduring notability is not really a question. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On the first paragraph, Smallbones when there are disagreements we discuss and then try to work out the policy-based consensus. I have never called for headcounts and so I don't know where you are getting this accusation: "You don't do headcounts when the count is against you. Yet you demand a consensus to include material that you don't like." Just strange.

Your argument against NOTNEWS is unfortunately circular - the news content should be included because it got covered a lot; that skips over the heart of the matter.

Finally, I have not questioned at all whether the larger issue of the price gauging is encyclopedic - I added most of that content! (dif, dif, dif, dif - that one adding price gauging, erc)

Again the bad faith you are bringing to this discussion is just overwhelming everything. The question is about this specific piece of content above - the opening of the AG investigation. only that

I understand that I will not convince you this should be left out; you are not going to convince me. We can wait to hear more voices; this only started yesterday. If we don't agree on what the policy-based consensus is here we can ask for a formal close from an admin who hasn't commented. Just standard talk page process. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen the rule that says that you (Jytdog) get to delay the insertion of anything you don't want by insisting that a consensus be reached for it's inclusion first where the consensus has nothing to do with a headcount. And now it has to pass an RfC that hasn't even been called yet? In any case the headcount is now 6 to 2.5 for inclusion (see immediately below). Of course there have to be policy-based reasons for including or excluding. Your reason for excluding is that NOTNEWS prevents the inclusion of anything - even 3 lines - that can't pass a notability test. Wrong! Notability is about the article and there is no question that the article is notable. With the 3 lines documented in about 50 reliable sources, about the price-gouging (note the spelling) that has been on every front page in the nation, we are just updating the article as we go. I don't think anybody supports your interpretation of NOTNEWS. So please just withdraw your nonsense objection and agree to abide by the current consensus.

And please do not accuse me of bad faith. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. just remove this edit note, the accusation here, the accusation here, here, etc. Sure. On the exaggerated "every front page in the nation", the New York Times didn't even have their own reporter cover it, much less put it on the front page. (see here) ; The Wall Street Journal had 4 sentences buried in a "business briefs" column here. Serious news organizations shrugged. run of the mill trivia, what you expect, blah blah blah. You are being dramatic. This is not at all denying that there are lots of reliable sources; there are. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrectly reading "about the price-gouging (note the spelling) that has been on every front page in the nation, we are just updating the article as we go." The story on price-gouging has been on the front pages of just about every paper in the US over the last 10 days or so. The updating about the antitrust investigation only has about 60 reliable sources reporting on it yesterday and today. You need to stop insisting that only you can decide what is relevant and how we decide that. You are now part of a small minority (or perhaps it's just you) that think WP:NOTNEWS has anything to do with this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to.... oh enough. Disengaging. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This argument showed up on some talk pages that I watchlist, and, holy-edit-war Batman!, the recent page edit history reflects pretty badly all around. I do not see what is so gossipy or recentist or soapboxy or otherwise objectionable about including the content. I say include it, and then revise it when revisions become appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I guess we'll just let this discussion take its course for a few days and, if the result is not clear, someone can commence an RfC. Right now a majority of editors favor inclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If things go as they have been after a few days I will not ask for further discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else still want to leave this out? Again, the sentences are:

In September 2016, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman began an antitrust investigation into Mylan's sales of EpiPens to New York schools. An initial investigation exposed possible anticompetitive terms in sales contracts that Mylan made with the schools.

They were added to the end of the article, as the last sentences in the "Legal issues" section. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you review above, Capeo, me and OID (the latter in a kind of meh way) are opposed, and none of us have said otherwise. There is no deadline here; we can wait a couple days to see what folks think. What is up with the all-on-fire business? In any case the issue with the school contracts was discussed on PBS Newhour and other sources back on Aug 26: Swetlitz, Ike; Silverman, Ed (August 26, 2016). "Mylan may have violated antitrust law in its EpiPen sales to schools". PBS Newshour.. Its great that Schneiderman has also found that this ~may~ be an issue. I added that Mylan were doing this back in 2012 to the history of the product on Sept 2 in this dif. It is part of how they maintained their market share for sure. Whether it was illegal remains to be seen. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you support the interests of the company, I suggest you accept mention of this problem so that we can explain it and give it due weight. TFD (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

:http://www.cc.com/video-clips/6rtisb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-big-benghazi-theory----if- Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not helpful to mock other editors. If you have nothing further to say we can add it and move on. Right now there is a consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, when I click your link I get a message, "SORRY, BUT THIS VIDEO IS UNAVAILABLE FROM YOUR LOCATION." Do you think its WP:POSSIBLE to WP:EXPLAIN your WP:POSITION without providing WP:LINKS and requiring us to WP:GUESS what you mean? TFD (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes Jytdog, you do have a problem showing a lack of respect to fellow editors. This would be a problem for any editor, but for somebody who has been blocked twice this year for similar behavior, it is extremely serious. I suggest that you

• shouldn't revert any edits except obvious vandalism without first discussing the edit on the talk page.
• actually read the policies, guidelines, and essays that you cite.
• not mock other editors - just say what you mean
• not edit war, and certainly don't warn other editors about edit warring when you are the transgressor

You also have declared a conflict of interest on your user page regarding your employer in the drug industry. Note this is not about paid editing. I'll suggest that you avoid drug industry topics for awhile, or declare your COI on the talk pages of the affected articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD that's the Jon Stewart video I linked to in my first comment, I took your comment as humor, playing off that comment. (it is a shame you can't see it, as it is really funny) he notes the Great Moral Outrage on Fox News - and their flabbergastedness that there is not more outrage within the American public - about the way the Obama administration handled the 2012 Benghazi attack, and then notes how they constantly frame their claims about what the Obama administration supposedly did or didn't do, as a question or a statement beginning with "if". He plays clips showing them being outraged and asking why more people aren't ("WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!?!"). He slows down over a clip where one of them says, "if that was indeed the case" and points out that the outrage seems to be based on speculation not fact, and how strange it would be, if they have wasted all this money and time on speculation. He plays a series of clips to demonstrate: "What if the president lied about Benghazi and what if in fact he knew about this much earlier?" "What if it turns out that their lives might have been saved"? "What if it turns out that Benghazi was a death trap?" "If he did nothing..." "If he lied...." Rhetoric "journalism" based on "if". That is what is in the video.

Then again, if your statement wasn't actually humor, well hm.

If anybody believes I have an actual COI for this topic of drug companies generally, COIN is thataway and I encourage you to bring that case so that it can be addressed; and I will take that a step further and say that if you don't bring a case and continue to make these accusations, that behavior will be sanctionable .... and I will pursue that. Hounding people with accusations of COI is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"if you don't bring a case and continue to make these accusations, that behavior will be sanctionable .... and I will pursue that." That would make some sense IF I'd ever mentioned your COI before. I haven't. So please leave out the threats. I just suggested that you disclose on talk pages or refrain from editing these articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of my last comment above. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Trying to keep us true to NOTNEWS is not worth the amount of bad faith that is being thrown at me here. I have better things to do and I withdraw my objection. I also acknowledge the trend toward including this. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)