6 ms·

The cost of the aspirin depends on these things lol. Look up 340B. There is a drug called Oncaspar. It's >$16,000 for one patient, and 5 cents for another (acq

The cost of the aspirin depends on these things lol. Look up 340B. There is a drug called Oncaspar. It's >$16,000 for one patient, and 5 cents for another (acquisition cost). Same drug, widely different acquisition cost.

danShumway 5y ago
When two pills coming from the same company are being made at the same time on the same machines, then they both cost the same. It's pretty obvious that the patient status changes nothing about that. However, the hospital's acquisition cost is variable because you're further down the supply chain and you're seeing the exact same kinds of arbitrary behind-the-scenes price swings that this article is talking about. It sounds like within the industry, hospitals are facing the same problems as consumers, and they need more price transparency from their suppliers as well. Hopefully increased requirements towards hospitals to explain their pricing will lead to hospitals demanding slightly more transparency and slightly more consistency from the other companies they work with.
- karmelapple 5y ago
  Drugs typically have a pretty in elastic demand. Whether it costs $16000 or $0.05 for a pill, the end user - whether a doctor or a patient - will simply figure out a way to pay for it to alleviate the pain, symptoms, and perhaps to avoid dying. Seems like 340B (I hadn’t heard of this before, thanks!) may have been created with recognition of this inelasticity. If we can limit prices this way, all it would take are a few more laws to put more price limits in place.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Sort of? As we're seeing with the pandemic, a not insignificant portion of the population is so used to healthcare being utterly inaccessible that animal medication seems like a reasonable alternative. That $16,000 pill isn't getting to patients, people are simply dying without it instead, going to faith/crystal "healers" instead.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    There is much more elasticity than you think. Most medicine is not about “not dying”. Here is an example: I get heartburns pretty often. I take a heartburn medicine omeprazole daily. It’s an over the counter drug, costing something like $0.3/dose. If they bumped the price to $16,000 I would just stop taking it, and started getting regular heartburns again. These suck, but I lived with them before finding this drug, and wouldn’t pay tens of thousands of dollar annually to get rid of them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fragmede 5y ago
  Under capitalism, a thing's cost to manufacture has nothing to do with the price of that something. Read that again and work through your objections. Ideally something's price is higher than its cost so the company can make a profit, but there are so many obvious exceptions that its nice, but not necessary. Thus, who cares how much the pill coming down line costs to manufacture, unless you start hacking into the free market and set price controls, and say that pharmaceutical companies are only allowed to make 20% profit (or however much), Martin Shrekili's play, of buying pharmacutical companies and simply raising prices of drugs, is a legal move under capitalism, no matter how reprehensible that move may be.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Eh, technically yes, but that's not really what I'm talking about. The way we use the word "cost" varies depending on the context, and I'm responding to a specific usage of that word. I'm not making a broad claim that drugs need to be sold at cost, I'm making a claim that drug costs are not so highly variable that coming up with a consumer price needs to take days of research after a procedure. jonathan-adly is making the argument that the inherent "cost" of drugs is itself highly variable for hospitals, and that means it's normal and expected that hospitals should not be able to tell patients the price of procedure before it happens. I'm arguing that the "cost" of the drugs is not actually that variable, that hospitals are just downstream of another part of the industry that is engaged in the same price-hiding behavior that hospitals are engaged in. Of course, under Capitalism "cost" doesn't determine price, the market determines price. But I would also point out that under Capitalism, signing a contract usually involves the terms of that contract being made upfront. Pretty much every other industry in America has figured out how to put a price tag on the products they sell, and I'm not sympathetic towards the medical industry just because up until now it's never needed to learn how. Apple sources its components from manufactures, those manufacturers could change their prices someday. But Apple still puts a price tag on iPhones, and because it needs to put a price tag on iPhones it's incentivized to form long-term contracts with suppliers and to demand a level of consistency in the prices its suppliers offer. Hospitals haven't needed to do that in a long time. Price transparency is an important part of most industries under Capitalism, and the medical industry hiding behind variable "cost" as an excuse to avoid pricing their products shouldn't be something we tolerate. Martin Shrekili's practices (as abhorrent as they might be) are a different conversation. I think that price limits and price transparency are two very different issues.
- mwerd 5y ago
  Not trying to be rude but he already told you the answer. You really should look up 340b. It's a federal program to rebate drug costs for certain types of patients and is a legal form of price discrimination. When you provide a drug in a healthcare setting, it can be a very different price depending on who receives it, because the federal government has the 340b program. Your argument about cost to manufacture isn't relevant in the same way that the marginal cost of a flying one more passenger on an airline isn't relevant. We all pay different prices for airline seats. Hospitals pay different prices for the same pharmaceuticals. There are a lot of smart people working in healthcare. A lot of people go into the industry thinking they know better and wash out. See the latest Berkshire Hathaway + JPM + Amazon failure.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    What's preventing the hospital from at least telling me the baseline price without 340b rebates and then listing those rebates separately? Does the hospital even know the baseline price without 340b rebates? If not, doesn't that strike you as a problem? > Hospitals pay different prices for the same pharmaceuticals. Right, that's exactly what I said: > It sounds like within the industry, hospitals are facing the same problems as consumers, and they need more price transparency from their suppliers as well. Hopefully increased requirements towards hospitals to explain their pricing will lead to hospitals demanding slightly more transparency and slightly more consistency from the other companies they work with.
    - mwerd 5y ago
      They have the transparency to supplier costs but it's so variable and granular that it's not meaningful to discuss. Drugs in a clinical setting are priced on a per unit basis (which might be per mL), usually with a flat markup over cost. In practice, that can mean a patient getting IV drug treatment could receive two different charges for the same drug in the same day. If it's a hard to find drug and they deplete batch 1 from supplier A, then administer batch 2 from supplier B, the cost per unit could change by multiplies. Using the earlier airline example, it's like trying to say what the cost of a generic flight is. The answer is always going to be it depends. Combining that kind of cost structure with a transparency requirement means you get unusable, and as parent commenter mentioned, laughable results. It's not malicious compliance driving this garbage price transparency, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the healthcare system works.
EForEndeavour 5y ago
The more I read about US healthcare, the more confused I am about how it's grown this perverse for this long. Prices are hidden (until the government forces them into the open), but they're badly distorted anyway by perverse incentives, which all seem to ladder up to the root cause of providing healthcare for profit.
- Notanothertoo 5y ago
  Thank the private free market.. /s it goes this way because the government involvement. If anyone else in another industry attempted the same thing they would be sued for fraud.

danShumway 5y ago

When two pills coming from the same company are being made at the same time on the same machines, then they both cost the same. It's pretty obvious that the patient status changes nothing about that. However, the hospital's acquisition cost is variable because you're further down the supply chain and you're seeing the exact same kinds of arbitrary behind-the-scenes price swings that this article is talking about. It sounds like within the industry, hospitals are facing the same problems as consumers, and they need more price transparency from their suppliers as well. Hopefully increased requirements towards hospitals to explain their pricing will lead to hospitals demanding slightly more transparency and slightly more consistency from the other companies they work with.

karmelapple 5y ago
Drugs typically have a pretty in elastic demand. Whether it costs $16000 or $0.05 for a pill, the end user - whether a doctor or a patient - will simply figure out a way to pay for it to alleviate the pain, symptoms, and perhaps to avoid dying. Seems like 340B (I hadn’t heard of this before, thanks!) may have been created with recognition of this inelasticity. If we can limit prices this way, all it would take are a few more laws to put more price limits in place.
- fragmede 5y ago
  Sort of? As we're seeing with the pandemic, a not insignificant portion of the population is so used to healthcare being utterly inaccessible that animal medication seems like a reasonable alternative. That $16,000 pill isn't getting to patients, people are simply dying without it instead, going to faith/crystal "healers" instead.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  There is much more elasticity than you think. Most medicine is not about “not dying”. Here is an example: I get heartburns pretty often. I take a heartburn medicine omeprazole daily. It’s an over the counter drug, costing something like $0.3/dose. If they bumped the price to $16,000 I would just stop taking it, and started getting regular heartburns again. These suck, but I lived with them before finding this drug, and wouldn’t pay tens of thousands of dollar annually to get rid of them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fragmede 5y ago
Under capitalism, a thing's cost to manufacture has nothing to do with the price of that something. Read that again and work through your objections. Ideally something's price is higher than its cost so the company can make a profit, but there are so many obvious exceptions that its nice, but not necessary. Thus, who cares how much the pill coming down line costs to manufacture, unless you start hacking into the free market and set price controls, and say that pharmaceutical companies are only allowed to make 20% profit (or however much), Martin Shrekili's play, of buying pharmacutical companies and simply raising prices of drugs, is a legal move under capitalism, no matter how reprehensible that move may be.
- danShumway 5y ago
  Eh, technically yes, but that's not really what I'm talking about. The way we use the word "cost" varies depending on the context, and I'm responding to a specific usage of that word. I'm not making a broad claim that drugs need to be sold at cost, I'm making a claim that drug costs are not so highly variable that coming up with a consumer price needs to take days of research after a procedure. jonathan-adly is making the argument that the inherent "cost" of drugs is itself highly variable for hospitals, and that means it's normal and expected that hospitals should not be able to tell patients the price of procedure before it happens. I'm arguing that the "cost" of the drugs is not actually that variable, that hospitals are just downstream of another part of the industry that is engaged in the same price-hiding behavior that hospitals are engaged in. Of course, under Capitalism "cost" doesn't determine price, the market determines price. But I would also point out that under Capitalism, signing a contract usually involves the terms of that contract being made upfront. Pretty much every other industry in America has figured out how to put a price tag on the products they sell, and I'm not sympathetic towards the medical industry just because up until now it's never needed to learn how. Apple sources its components from manufactures, those manufacturers could change their prices someday. But Apple still puts a price tag on iPhones, and because it needs to put a price tag on iPhones it's incentivized to form long-term contracts with suppliers and to demand a level of consistency in the prices its suppliers offer. Hospitals haven't needed to do that in a long time. Price transparency is an important part of most industries under Capitalism, and the medical industry hiding behind variable "cost" as an excuse to avoid pricing their products shouldn't be something we tolerate. Martin Shrekili's practices (as abhorrent as they might be) are a different conversation. I think that price limits and price transparency are two very different issues.
mwerd 5y ago
Not trying to be rude but he already told you the answer. You really should look up 340b. It's a federal program to rebate drug costs for certain types of patients and is a legal form of price discrimination. When you provide a drug in a healthcare setting, it can be a very different price depending on who receives it, because the federal government has the 340b program. Your argument about cost to manufacture isn't relevant in the same way that the marginal cost of a flying one more passenger on an airline isn't relevant. We all pay different prices for airline seats. Hospitals pay different prices for the same pharmaceuticals. There are a lot of smart people working in healthcare. A lot of people go into the industry thinking they know better and wash out. See the latest Berkshire Hathaway + JPM + Amazon failure.
- danShumway 5y ago
  What's preventing the hospital from at least telling me the baseline price without 340b rebates and then listing those rebates separately? Does the hospital even know the baseline price without 340b rebates? If not, doesn't that strike you as a problem? > Hospitals pay different prices for the same pharmaceuticals. Right, that's exactly what I said: > It sounds like within the industry, hospitals are facing the same problems as consumers, and they need more price transparency from their suppliers as well. Hopefully increased requirements towards hospitals to explain their pricing will lead to hospitals demanding slightly more transparency and slightly more consistency from the other companies they work with.
  - mwerd 5y ago
    They have the transparency to supplier costs but it's so variable and granular that it's not meaningful to discuss. Drugs in a clinical setting are priced on a per unit basis (which might be per mL), usually with a flat markup over cost. In practice, that can mean a patient getting IV drug treatment could receive two different charges for the same drug in the same day. If it's a hard to find drug and they deplete batch 1 from supplier A, then administer batch 2 from supplier B, the cost per unit could change by multiplies. Using the earlier airline example, it's like trying to say what the cost of a generic flight is. The answer is always going to be it depends. Combining that kind of cost structure with a transparency requirement means you get unusable, and as parent commenter mentioned, laughable results. It's not malicious compliance driving this garbage price transparency, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the healthcare system works.

EForEndeavour 5y ago

The more I read about US healthcare, the more confused I am about how it's grown this perverse for this long. Prices are hidden (until the government forces them into the open), but they're badly distorted anyway by perverse incentives, which all seem to ladder up to the root cause of providing healthcare for profit.

Notanothertoo 5y ago
Thank the private free market.. /s it goes this way because the government involvement. If anyone else in another industry attempted the same thing they would be sued for fraud.