Contribute Try STAT+ Today

WASHINGTON — Three years after Martin Shkreli became the poster boy of pharmaceutical company greed, another drug company executive is setting himself up for a similar infamy. And now, just as then, there is little the government can do — besides make a fuss.

Nirmal Mulye, CEO of Nostrum Laboratories, quadrupled the price of a generic liquid antibiotic used to treat bladder infections, the Financial Times reported Tuesday. And he had little shame.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT+ is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • The government wants to control our pain, but can’t control prices of needed medicine! Ridiculous. KARMA

  • Maximizing return, ie by jacking up prices as high as possible, is actually a legal obligation of the CEO towards shareholder under US law, unless the company is organized as B-Corp. The only limit would be if the action of the CEO would short or long-term damage share holder value. The correct response would be to change US corporate law and not to moralize about its ethics and consequences, while the CEO is exposed to share holder lawsuits. Two sides of the coin!

Comments are closed.