4 ms·

I didn't see anything about pricing, are you referring to this specific item or in general?

• zdragnar 6y ago
  Not op, but it is true in general. The challenge is volume; with a small market, there isn't much motivation to struggle to stay in business selling at low margins. Also, since these may be considered accessibility devices but not medical devices, insurance May not cover a lot of things that ought to be considered essential.
  • markvdb 6y ago
    The profit motive is everywhere in the medical sector, and that is a bad thing. Even if you believe in free markets, it's not easy to get the best care. To stay cose to the eye as a subject, look at vitreomacular adhesion. Roughly two possible treatments: - costly and complicated eye surgery - substantially simpler ocriplasmin [0] injections In many cases where ocriplasmin looks like it could be the perfect solution, it isn't even considered. Could that have something to do with the surgeon's incentives alignment? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocriplasmin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocriplasmin
    • ghufran_syed 6y ago
      An analogous problem in drugs seems to have been effectively addressed by the Orphan Drug act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983) Sounds like maybe there needs to be something similar for medical devices?
  • salawat 6y ago
    This is the issue with most small population medical research, or research that's worthwhile but by policy difficult to commercialize. "Sucks to be you" tends to be every non-sufferer's response.