5 ms·
I understand that $25 may have been an introductory loss leader but $1k seems insane and short sighted given the size of the market this drug potentially has.
by dsfyu404ed 4y ago
I understand that $25 may have been an introductory loss leader but $1k seems insane and short sighted given the size of the market this drug potentially has.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI assume it's some kind of health insurance bullshit pricing, where they never really expect people to buy it for $1000 a month.
- cowpig 4y agoThe US healthcare system is systematically broken. I've sworn off doing business in that sector because the cultural attitude that insurance companies have towards payment has infected everything. You can't trust anything anyone says about how much they will pay for something. Some kind of drawn-out, adversarial process around payment collection is the expectation. Sorry for that rant I am a bit traumatized by my experiences trying to do business in the US healthcare industry.
- alyandon 4y agoIt is absolutely insane what insurance companies will actually pay for - mine was fulling willing to pay $1250 for a simple ultrasound procedure at a hospital facility vs $150 at a specialty clinic. I made the smart decision to have it done at the clinic but it isn't like I'm going to be rewarded for that decision by paying lower premiums.
- moneywoes 4y agoHow do find these prices
- alyandon 4y agoThe hard way - I looked up the average price for the procedure and pestered them for up front pricing. When they told me what they were going to charge I walked out of the facility without another word and went to the local clinic. I also let my doctor know that I was extremely displeased about his referral to that facility when there were cheaper alternatives.
- AdrianB1 4y agoThe insurance companies have huge discounts, even 90% for many procedures. The price list is usually for uninsured people, not what is ever paid by insurance.
- alyandon 4y agoIn my case - $1250 would have been the contract/discounted price to the insurance company. List price was almost 2x that amount.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoSurely there is a formula that can solve for an optimum price that will maximize revenue by making it cheap enough for a certain segment of the population to pay for out of pocket. I don't have diabetes and I'm not morbidly obese, but I have struggled with my weight, and, frankly, given the hype, I'd try it on my own if it were something like $100/mo.
- dmurray 4y agoMaybe 10% of people like you would also pay for it at $1000/mo, and they're already solving for optimum profit (not revenue - presumably they have some marginal costs). Maybe they can capture the $1000/mo market first and then offer something very similar to those who are interested at $100/mo. Or they have capacity constraints where they can't scale up manufacturing to supply everyone who would buy it at $100, but they can validate their process at the higher price first.
- wonderwonder 4y ago"The conflict, which has been exacerbated by shortages of Mounjaro and two of its GLP-1 predecessors, Ozempic and Trulicit"
- wonderwonder 4y ago"The conflict, which has been exacerbated by shortages of Mounjaro and two of its GLP-1 predecessors, Ozempic and Trulicit" Seems like a supply chain problem
- refurb 4y agoIts not a loss leader. $25 was the patient support program for diabetes. That still exists. The drug isnt approved for obesity, so they dont get access to the program. Its actually illegal for the company. This is a case of the company stopping people from doing something they shouldnt have been doing in the first place.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoThey are currently unable to produce enough of these medications, so charging a fortune for it makes sense to them. Private enterprise is stepping in to fill the gap via US "compounding pharmacies", with all the potential safety risks that entails.