28 ms·

I don't think that person implied that at all. That's how I remember the whole Shkreli thing too -- there were about 3,000 people taking that drug he hiked the

I don't think that person implied that at all. That's how I remember the whole Shkreli thing too -- there were about 3,000 people taking that drug he hiked the price on, and 60% of them got it for $1. The remainder got it through health insurance, and for those who couldn't afford it at all, he claims they got it for free. Note I have _not_ fact-checked any of that, but that goes against the typical narrative that people couldn't get the drug because of the price hike.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
If your "_not_ fact-checked" description of his behaviour is correct, why did the price go up at all? Unless, prior to the price-hike, those who got it for $1 got it for 50 cents or something, it sounds like the price hike actually hurt the business's bottom line. Why would that happen? If you're correct about this, could it have been a result of the scrutiny? Are there ever any instances where drug costs skyrocket and patients are forced to bear the cost? Even if a highlighted instance of predatory behaviour was papered over due to said highlight, and even if that papering-over resulted in greater drug availability at lower cost, I think that might have been a result of the spotlight, rather than proof positive that the behaviour isn't awful and doesn't hurt those unlucky enough to fall ill.