I would be more interested in the price after the expected discount that the pharmaceutical companies give.
If the price increase is still high then it is newsworthy.
I would be more interested in the price after the expected discount that the pharmaceutical companies give.
If the price increase is still high then it is newsworthy.
I get it, some people don’t feel phama companies should still be able to profit on a drug invented 50years ago. But I just can’t take any discussion about that serious when we are also in an environment where the purchasers take literally twice the profits on all drug sales without having invested a penny in research or having spent a penny in production distribution or marketing.
They eat up all that money all by abusing their position of “representing the buyers”, but at the same time since their rebates are percentage cuts they are just pushing pharma companies to increase prices over and over again.
The American model is rotten and someone has to stop the madness.
Being in dialysis, I take a bunch of medicines. One was very expensive buy the drug company put lots of effort to make sure I got the copay reimbursed. Again they were after the insurance money and were willing to reimburse 10% of an inflated cost. After the patent expired and generics were available, my copay went down by 90%.
The forces at play in the pharma/PBM negotiation leads to price increases instead of price competition because the PBM effectively sits on both sides of the table. They want high rebates and they don't care about list-prices as long as they can take back a bit cut of them. This is why you see rebates reaching levels close to 70%. Imagine if you sent a guy to negotiate a car purchase for you, and that guy was looking at taking 70% of the net you pay through rebates from the car dealership. Do you honestly think he would be looking for the cheapest deal?