5 ms·

> I'm no economic, but we've seen time and time again that lowering prices boosts volume sold to the point where eventual profit is much higher. The current sy

by koolba 5y ago

> I'm no economic, but we've seen time and time again that lowering prices boosts volume sold to the point where eventual profit is much higher. The current system has whoever can afford it pay the high price, whoever can afford less pay a lower price, and whoever can’t pay anything doesn’t pay anything. Lowering drug costs won’t change the number of people taking drugs. That already based on need. All that changes is the amount of total profits. The only politically and morally acceptable answer for this is to raise the price of drug costs globally to soften the change in profits.

Nasrudith 5y ago
Amusingly I would have expected the opposite in terms of what people find acceptable. Trying to charge say $200 for HIV medication to subsistence farmers in Sudan would be viewed as unconscionable. In a period of unemployment I found that my medications basically operated on the afford less lower price - they gave coupons usable without insurance to far more reasonable prices. I can see clear brand promption and price discrimination here - they don't want to surrender market mindshare and brand name recognition by giving up the low end or their margins by cutting the cost across the board. So they give discounts that usually only the low end could or would take. Ironically such slightly sleazy behavior fits with one hypocratic oath vow to only charge what was within their ability to pay. Or course "globally" probably means more charge other first world nations so it would be more "splitting the check among coworkers" than "demand the penniless man in the breadline pay a dollar". Still a position I expect to be US popular only. As far as I can tell drug prices are driven by mainly one thing, realpolitik. Hepatitis C cures are targetted based upon organ transplant costs because that is the only alternative so it still helps but they make huge profits as say $75k drug treatments are still a big improvement over $150k of transplant costs. Unified blocs can twist arms to a certain degree, tiny blocs pay more for reasons beyond just spikey risk pools and meta-insurance, and companies will accept lower profits from some sales if it helps maintain higher profit sales.

by koolba 5y ago

Nasrudith 5y ago

Amusingly I would have expected the opposite in terms of what people find acceptable. Trying to charge say $200 for HIV medication to subsistence farmers in Sudan would be viewed as unconscionable. In a period of unemployment I found that my medications basically operated on the afford less lower price - they gave coupons usable without insurance to far more reasonable prices. I can see clear brand promption and price discrimination here - they don't want to surrender market mindshare and brand name recognition by giving up the low end or their margins by cutting the cost across the board. So they give discounts that usually only the low end could or would take. Ironically such slightly sleazy behavior fits with one hypocratic oath vow to only charge what was within their ability to pay. Or course "globally" probably means more charge other first world nations so it would be more "splitting the check among coworkers" than "demand the penniless man in the breadline pay a dollar". Still a position I expect to be US popular only. As far as I can tell drug prices are driven by mainly one thing, realpolitik. Hepatitis C cures are targetted based upon organ transplant costs because that is the only alternative so it still helps but they make huge profits as say $75k drug treatments are still a big improvement over $150k of transplant costs. Unified blocs can twist arms to a certain degree, tiny blocs pay more for reasons beyond just spikey risk pools and meta-insurance, and companies will accept lower profits from some sales if it helps maintain higher profit sales.