Hacker News Reader

Comment by schmidty | Hacker News Reader

How is government protecting a monopoly free market exactly?

Why is it protecting a monopoly? Why doesn't it say "this EpiPen can't cost more than $30"?

Perhaps because it actually costs more than $30 and so an edict such of this would guarantee that there are no EpiPens at all?

In any case, the current high price is the result of regulatory/legislative actions and so the current price is evidence of regulatory failure, not market failure.

I don't think it is a massive regulatory failure to have the pharmacy dispense a product with matching use instructions to the product that is prescribed.

So it's the market that has doctors prescribing $600 Epipens instead of the $150 alternative (that has different use instructions and thus cannot be used to fill a prescription for an Epipen).

Isn't this just another example of a problem created by the rules/regulations? A pharmacist is forbidden from providing the $150 alternative even if the customer specifically requests it (because of the prescription requirement and rules).

For those who need epinephrine injectors, can't they just ask their doctors to prescribe Adrenaclick? What prevents that from happening? I'm guessing it is insurance guidelines that are also stuck in the EpiPen-only world but perhaps it is also doctors being too conservative?

It's marketing. I saw some discussion on social media, people expressed a preference for the Epipen because they expected other people to be more aware of how to use it.

Same with parents, they expect the school nurse to be more familiar with the Epipen (and I guess the other way around, the nurses prefer Epipen because they are familiar with it).

If asking the pharmacist for a specific type of injector isn't onerous then neither is asking the doctor.

I'm willing to concede that US medical regulation has lots of problems, but there is also clearly some problems with the way people in this market are behaving. Patients should care about saving $1000-$1500. Doctors should care about saving their patients $1000-1500.

Well in a perverse sort of way, the $600 price tag is certainly one way to motivate patients to demand alternatives from their doctors and insurance companies.

Because then no one will manufacture it. You can't just will things into existence with unrealistic feel good rhetoric.

If the cost is $5 why wouldn't someone manufacture it then?

> You can't just will things into existence with unrealistic feel good rhetoric.

Why not? We've willed wars and consequent huge handouts to the military industrial complex. I am sure if we tried a bit we can will into existance some $30 EpiPens.

You might be able to coerce (by force) the world to give you what you want at the price that you want. But that doesnt mean it comes without a price. There is always a cost and many times, with governmental interference much of it is unintended consequences not immediately seen.

If the pen cost less than $30 to manufacture, there's no reason that no one would manufacture it.

That's what they did in Venezuela for a whole host of products you can no longer find.

EXACTLY

A free market would mean anyone who wanted to to create one of these.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com