> isn't this mostly the levying of costs of very expensive drugs onto the insurance providers, rather than the patient? Meaning the "victim" of the price gougin

> isn't this mostly the levying of costs of very expensive drugs onto the insurance providers, rather than the patient? Meaning the "victim" of the price gouging is the insurance company? I feel there's the obligatory remark here of "and how exactly is the insurance company paying for it?". > I assume it does somewhat directly in the form of higher monthly payments (for the patient and other customers of the insurance)? Absolutely directly. > Can the insurance company deny access due to the high cost? They have little motivation to do so. They just up the premiums. They're limited by law on administrative overhead costs, and are mandated to return unspent premiums (or roll them over), so the only way to make more money is "increase premiums, so we're allowed higher administrative overheads". This was a hallmark of Martin Shkreli. He liked to paint a picture of "I'll ensure you're only paying a low copay while the insurance companies take the hit for this drug I'm charging exorbitant pricing[1] for", as if customers thought that insurance had a magical money fairy, rather than that money was coming from them (albeit usually indirectly through their employer). Sadly, he was often right - a non-negligible amount of people saw him as an everyday hero, sticking it to the man. [1] Yes, pharma has R&D costs. Shkreli's company didn't do much R&D though, mostly patent acquisition[2]. [2] "Fun" story about that. New drug comes before the FDA for approval, and it is opened up for comment. Shkreli lodges an objection to approval of this drug. Why? Because it's unsafe? No - trials thus far have shown it to be safer than the existing drug options. Why? Because it's less effective? No - it's also been shown to be more effective than existing drugs. Perhaps it's more expensive? No - cost of R&D and production, and estimated retail costs are expected to be lower than existing drugs. Huh, odd. So why in this case would Shkreli oppose this drug getting to the market? The only reason he lodged an appeal with the FDA had nothing to do with the drug, butbecause he and his company had just bought the patent to one of those 'existing drugs' referenced, and this new drug coming to market would crater the demand for his drug, and as a result torpedo the profitability of his investment/gamble. Fuck Martin Shkreli.