Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

Home
Hiring
Products
Companies
Discussion
Q&A
Users
Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

AI-observed conversations & context

Daily AI-observed summaries, trends, and audience signals pulled from Hacker News so you can see the conversation before it hits your feed.

LiveBeta

Explore

  • Home
  • Hiring
  • Products
  • Companies
  • Discussion
  • Q&A

Resources

  • Visit Hacker News
  • HN API
  • Modal cronjobs
  • Meta Llama

Briefings

Inbox recaps on the loudest debates & under-the-radar launches.

Connect

© 2025 Not Hacker News! — independent Hacker News companion.

Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.

Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

Home
Hiring
Products
Companies
Discussion
Q&A
Users
  1. Home
  2. /Discussion
  3. /California to begin selling affordable state-branded insulin beginning next year
  1. Home
  2. /Discussion
  3. /California to begin selling affordable state-branded insulin beginning next year
Last activity about 1 month agoPosted Oct 16, 2025 at 5:15 PM EDT

California to Begin Selling Affordable State-Branded Insulin Beginning Next Year

toomuchtodo
69 points
17 comments

Mood

calm

Sentiment

positive

Category

other

Key topics

Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals
Government Intervention
Debate intensity40/100

California plans to sell affordable state-branded insulin, sparking discussion on the economics and potential impact of this initiative, as well as its relation to previous efforts and Big Pharma's price cuts.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Light discussion

First comment

2m

Peak period

4

Hour 8

Avg / period

2

Comment distribution14 data points
Loading chart...

Based on 14 loaded comments

Key moments

  1. 01Story posted

    Oct 16, 2025 at 5:15 PM EDT

    about 1 month ago

    Step 01
  2. 02First comment

    Oct 16, 2025 at 5:18 PM EDT

    2m after posting

    Step 02
  3. 03Peak activity

    4 comments in Hour 8

    Hottest window of the conversation

    Step 03
  4. 04Latest activity

    Oct 17, 2025 at 1:18 PM EDT

    about 1 month ago

    Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (17 comments)
Showing 14 comments of 17
toomuchtodoAuthor
about 1 month ago
1 reply
Related:

California governor vetoes bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37815862 - October 2023 (139 comments)

California’s Plan for Cheaper Insulin Collides with Big Pharma’s Price Cuts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35325942 - March 2023 (2 comments)

California's Own Brand of Insulin - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35220390 - March 2023 (0 comments)

Insulin is way too expensive. California has a solution: Make its own - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34726726 - February 2023 (258 comments)

California aims to make its own insulin brand to lower price - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32311465 - August 2022 (29 comments)

Governor Newsom announces California will make its own insulin - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32021868 - July 2022 (216 comments)

California aims to slash insulin prices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31649237 - June 2022 (208 comments)

JumpCrisscross
about 1 month ago
4 replies
> bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin

Because this worked so well for home insurance.

$35 in 2025 dollars buys as much as $32.92 in 2023 dollars [1]. At what point does it become unprofitable for anyone to manufacture and deliver? (Not the out-of-patent stuff nobody wants to take that can be made for $3/vial. The long-acting and ultra-fast formulations people actually use when given a choice.)

And unlike with home insurance, in an insulin shortage, people die. You need a CalFIRE mechanism, a seller of last resort, who will purchase the insulin at any price on the market and sell it at $35 for such a scheme to work.

State-controlled production removes that surprise factor. It's a much better system than price regulation.

[1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com

hodgehog11
about 1 month ago
1 reply
The difference is that the proposed caps for home insurance would have made the product unprofitable, no question.

My understanding is that there is no way any vial of insulin anywhere, at this point in time, should cost enough to produce for US$35 asking price to be unprofitable. See [1] and [2] for example. This would need to increase with inflation, of course.

Regardless, the bill didn't pass. Arguments like this were probably the reason why.

[1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(21)... [2] https://www.medcentral.com/endocrinology/diabetes/the-high-c...

dragonwriter
about 1 month ago
> My understanding is that there is no way any vial of insulin anywhere, at this point in time, should cost enough to produce for US$35 asking price to be unprofitable.

The vetoed bill (SB 90 of 2023) did not address the price of insulin, only the allowable insurance copay for insulin. The fact that this, without addressing the actual price, would just shift the costs from copays to premiums was called out in the veto message.

Also note that, with CalRx's insulin initiative ready to deliver at the same time the bill goes into effect, SB 40 of 2025 which set the same copay cap as SB 90 of 2023, was signed by Newsom this week.

jrflowers
about 1 month ago
1 reply
> The long-acting and ultra-fast formulations people actually use when given a choice.

The patent for insulin glargine (Lantus) and insulin aspart (NovoLog) expired over a decade ago, though kind of amusingly Sanofi holds an active patent on “putting more Lantus in a vial than you usually would”

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9345750B2/en

I could be wrong but off the top of my head the only insulin I can think of that’s probably under patent is Afrezza, which is cool as hell because it’s inhalable and ultra-quick

JumpCrisscross
about 1 month ago
1 reply
It’s less the patent per se than the production cost. A lot of cost estimates use the 1980s Humalin or whatnot as their baseline. I’m not diabetic. But everyone I know who is doesn’t like that one. So we need to know the cost for the medicines folks are actually taking.
jrflowers
about 1 month ago
1 reply
It looks like the cost to manufacture modern biosimilars could be around $2-6 per vial.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850

s1artibartfast
about 1 month ago
Cost to manufacture obviously isnt the only factor.
Teever
about 1 month ago
1 reply
What if the price cap was set at whatever Canadians pay for insulin?

It seems like insulin is a lot more affordable there and it's obviously an economically sustainable rate because companies keep selling it to Canada.

How much does it cost in Canada anyways?

TimBurman
about 1 month ago
Fast Acting Humalog 1000 unit (10 ml) vials cost CAD $40.34 = USD $28.73 in Alberta. Anyone can get Blue Cross from the government which is CAD $720 a year. Then each 3 month supply of a prescription like insulin has a co-pay of $28 a quarter, for however many vials you need. I last used Lantus 24 hour insulin in 2020, when it was around CAD $60, but the government has been switching to biosimilar brands and providing free insulin pumps and supplies including test strips, which only use fast acting insulins. Lantus is most similar to this California insulin.
dragonwriter
about 1 month ago
It's worth noting that the veto message on the 2023 bill (which did not cap insulin prices, but only insurance copays for insulin) explicitly called out the CalRx project as providing the real solution, and noted that capping copays without addressing actual drug costs would result in the actual price just getting passed on to consumers via insurance premiums.

It is also worth noting that this week Newsom signed SB 40 0f 2025, which did exactly the same thing in this area as the vetoed SB 90 of 2023, no doubt because the price side was also being adddressed simultaneously, with CalRx insulin to be on available in January when SB 40 goes into effect.

jerlam
about 1 month ago
1 reply
I want to know the economics of this, especially since California is partnering with the actual company that's building and running the factories. Is this insulin expected to sell at a profit? Break-even? Or is California just spending its own money to get the price point down?
dragonwriter
about 1 month ago
The biosimilar insulin initiative is by design priced to cover end-to-end costs (the CalRx own program costs and the cost to manufacture); the main contracted manufacturer (CivicaRx) is also a nonprofit generic drug manufacturer, but the initial supply that will be available in January is something they've subcontracted with Biocon Biologics for (my understanding is that this is because the Biocon product already has FDA clearance, whereas regulatory clearance for CivicaRx's product is still pending, though the manufacturing is up and running.)
dragonwriter
about 1 month ago
The biosimiliar insulin initiative is a very big deal, but for context it is not CalRx's first effort to reach public availability. That was the Naloxone Initiative, which made OTC naloxone (generic for Narcan), which hit the market last year at about 40% below the pre-existing market price, and has dropped further since.

3 more comments available on Hacker News

View full discussion on Hacker News
ID: 45610746Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 12:44:40 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Read ArticleView on HN
Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

AI-observed conversations & context

Daily AI-observed summaries, trends, and audience signals pulled from Hacker News so you can see the conversation before it hits your feed.

LiveBeta

Explore

  • Home
  • Hiring
  • Products
  • Companies
  • Discussion
  • Q&A

Resources

  • Visit Hacker News
  • HN API
  • Modal cronjobs
  • Meta Llama

Briefings

Inbox recaps on the loudest debates & under-the-radar launches.

Connect

© 2025 Not Hacker News! — independent Hacker News companion.

Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.