Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Epi pens contain epinephrine which is a hormone that is extremely helpful and effective in dealing with life-threatening allergic reactions. Perhaps, some of you are allergic to bee stings or you have a child that is. Any severe allergy can be life threatening and many people keep an epi pen or two in their home as a precaution.
Once again, America's pharmaceutical industry has found a product that they think they can milk for all it is worth. The cost of epi pens has risen from about $80 ten years ago to almost $600 today. Any business experiences increases in costs that require it to occasionally raise the cost of its product. Nor, should anyone deny a business the right to a profit.
The question that has to be raised though is how a 700% increase in the cost of a product can be justified when: (1) The costs of that product have only gone up minimally in the last decade; and (2) The product is a life-saving innovation. In other words, without it, people will die unnecessarily.
The reality that has to be faced in this country is that some form of price regulation is necessary for pharmaceutical companies. We need to get priorities straight. Saving lives is more important than a corporation's right to charge excessive prices for a product that some people have no choice to purchase. My suggestion would be that pharmaceutical companies that produce medications that are judged to be "life saving" should have their prices regulated by a government body in the same way that we regulate the charges of public utilities such as electric companies and companies that provide natural gas for heating our homes. Such regulation does not mean pharmaceutical companies could not and would not earn a profit. It simply means that the profits would be regulated so that they are not excessive.
Blame our financial system first, which rewards revenue and profit growth no matter what the source or societal cost. Blame company directors that approve pay plans tied to revenue/profit growth. Blame our health care system that has no means to control expenses.
Finally, blame congress which is way to busy collecting campaign donations from all the above, in return for not preventing milking of the cow, which is us, the consumers. For those dear readers opposed to any form of governmental regulation, or regulation of health care markets, this is what you get. And yes, skyrocketing health care insurance premiums, rising co-pay, deductibles and such are all on the way, even for employer policies, mostly driven by rising drug expenses.
And please don't believe drug company protests that price controls would limit new "life saving" drugs. First, few of their new drugs are lifesaving, including the oncology drugs. Next, more money is spent by drug companies on sales and advertising than on research. Just go read an annual report...
The reality that has to be faced in this country is that some form of price regulation is necessary for pharmaceutical companies. We need to get priorities straight. Saving lives is more important than a corporation's right to charge excessive prices for a product that some people have no choice to purchase. My suggestion would be that pharmaceutical companies that produce medications that are judged to be "life saving" should have their prices regulated by a government body in the same way that we regulate the charges of public utilities such as electric companies and companies that provide natural gas for heating our homes. Such regulation does not mean pharmaceutical companies could not and would not earn a profit. It simply means that the profits would be regulated so that they are not excessive.
This is a slippery slope. You really want the government to decide what YOU can charge for YOUR services? If you make it not worth it for the company, they will simply stop making the product and move on to something with less regulation. Then you have no epi-pens at all.
This is a slippery slope. You really want the government to decide what YOU can charge for YOUR services? If you make it not worth it for the company, they will simply stop making the product and move on to something with less regulation. Then you have no epi-pens at all.
The product can be produced pretty cheaply. I worry about the slippery slope too. However, what too many people in the medical field seem to be losing sight of is that too many people in this country are struggling to afford even the most essential medical care. At some point, a simple choice has to be made: How many human lives must be lost or endangered to preserve the equivalent of laisse faire capitalism in an industry that seems remarkably immune to competition?
If government can regulate the prices that utilities charge, it can regulate the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for life saving products.
The problem would never have come to this if the pharmaceutical industry was willing to content itself with reasonable profits.
If what I suggest--price regulation--is to be avoided than I would appeal to the pharmaceutical industry now: Stop this outrageous price gouging and stop it now.
ABC news reported about this also this evening, said a government investigation is in the works.
This is another situation where one company has a monopoly and can do as it pleases. Outside of the USA you can get drugs for a substantial discount, check it out.
ah yes, that "slippery slope" argument, so we keep our status quo, which works so well...
It's interesting how many people fall for the conservative BS, which usually argues one or more of the following: 1. gotta have choice, while blocking the release of information for making an informed choice, as in choice of health providers 2. Companies will stop making still highly profitable products so leave them alone - great for investors, not so good for us, who are beset with the highest costs in the world. 3. Slippery slope, as if any attempt to control corporate activities will lead to government take over. Yea, sure, just like we have government ownership of everything else, such as utilities, transport, manufacturing and such, all of which have a degree of government regulation.
I suppose toofache32 really believes in a libertarian approach, where we junk environmental controls, checks on monopoly power and such?
The product can be produced pretty cheaply. I worry about the slippery slope too. However, what too many people in the medical field seem to be losing sight of is that too many people in this country are struggling to afford even the most essential medical care. At some point, a simple choice has to be made: How many human lives must be lost or endangered to preserve the equivalent of laisse faire capitalism in an industry that seems remarkably immune to competition?
If government can regulate the prices that utilities charge, it can regulate the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for life saving products.
The problem would never have come to this if the pharmaceutical industry was willing to content itself with reasonable profits.
If what I suggest--price regulation--is to be avoided than I would appeal to the pharmaceutical industry now: Stop this outrageous price gouging and stop it now.
Not people from the medical field, people from the financial fields
No, we don't need more gubment regulation. We need competition.
Until then, Americans should have their prescriptions filled in other countries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we don't need more gubment regulation. We need competition.
