I feel like it's a bit of a poor comparison on the basis that an ER visit's primary purpose isn't the same as an Epipen's primary purpose. Ultimately, they can

I feel like it's a bit of a poor comparison on the basis that an ER visit's primary purpose isn't the same as an Epipen's primary purpose. Ultimately, they can achieve the same goals, but we're not doing a direct comparison of costs. Using all of the other costs and aspects of an ER visit to justify a price increase of Epipens feels dishonest; I do realize that ERs are largely being misused in the US as general health care, but the E is supposed to be for emergency, and the cost comes from the support required to adequately respond to emergency situations. Given that I was under the impression that if you have a situation where you need an epipen you're supposed to seek medical care anyways [1], I'm not sure how this reasoning of "it lowers costs" really plays out, since it seems to me like it's just hiking up the price of an already bad situation. I don't see this as particularly beneficial to anyone other than the sellers of epipens. [1] I must note, my only reference to this is my own fractured knowledge from when I had a friend that required an epipen and reading the instructions for administration. This was a long time ago though and I don't particularly trust my own memory.