3 ms·
One reason would be if pharma has a sufficiently larger margin than hospitals and doctors. It might be the case that there's more to save in that 10% than the
by cle 10y ago
One reason would be if pharma has a sufficiently larger margin than hospitals and doctors. It might be the case that there's more to save in that 10% than the rest of the 90% (especially when the cost of implementing change is considered).
- dexterdog 10y agoYes, but if you cut the cost in half you would be saving 5% of the overall. We all know there is far more than 5% savings in the 90% piece.
- cle 10y agoPerhaps, but at what cost? (I'm playing devil's advocate, I don't know what's the right move here, but I do know that the post I replied to only offered an incomplete picture.)