3 ms·
On principle, you are right. However, Rs 2.8 lakh for 1 month of pills is inordinately expensive. It's something that no one but aristocrats will be able to aff
by Indyan 15y ago
On principle, you are right. However, Rs 2.8 lakh for 1 month of pills is inordinately expensive. It's something that no one but aristocrats will be able to afford. By the standards of the Indian society, I fall in the upper middle class category, and that amount is almost half of my annual salary (more than half after tax deductions). To get an idea about how expensive it is, just think whether you could afford to buy a new car (even a cheap one) every month. Another point worth noting is that most Indians don't have medical insurance, since typical healthcare is quite cheap in India.
Under the new forced licensing terms, Bayer will still be making money. In fact, it might end up making pretty much the same as before, since volume will increase dramatically thanks to the 97% price cut.
- ig1 15y agoBayer doesn't have a problem with selling cheaper drugs to poor people, they do have a problem when those drugs go onto the grey market and get purchased by those who could afford Bayer's regular price. That's why drug companies don't do differential pricing, because they can't stop the cannibalization of their wealthier markets.
- matwood 15y agoExactly. It's very similar to how content companies try to control the release of content and pricing around the world (region codes ugh). If any pharm company sells drug A in the US for $100 and sells the same drug in Africa for $1 then it's an obvious arbitration opportunity. They are trying to prevent the 'flat world' from eating sales by simply pricing it the same everywhere.