• satanmat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yes! And if you think that’s evil, wait til you find out about dynamic pricing;

    Charge people differently; setting the price to the maximum that each can handle…

    That is at the core of modern capitalism; maximizing profits. yes it is too bad so sad that some people die; they should have worked harder to have gotten better jobs

  • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m on a generic of truvada as a preventative. 30 days can be $1500-2000 for name brand no insurance. I get mine for $5 and somehow my insurance, the pharmacy, and the manufacturer are all still making enough money off that $5 to not complain. How the fuck are they getting away with the $2k pricetag

    • SoleInvictus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      I take Xolair, which is billed at about $5k for four syringes. Insurance pays $4875 and the Xolair copay program, run by the manufacturer, pays $125. Why are they so willing to pick up the copay? Before four syringes of Xolair cost about $60 in total to produce.

      • scutiger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Because the insurance company already paid them way more than it’s really worth. And if the insurance company has agreed to pay that much, it’s because they’re making more than enough profit off their “service” to everyone that they can afford to pay it.

        If your medicine used to cost $60 and now costs $5000 thst’s because the insurance company knows they can get that money from its customers.

    • TAG@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      If they sell you pay $5 for the drug and the next person in line pays $2k for the same drug, they are making $1k per patient. They are also writing off the $3k that they could be charging you as a charitable contribution, so they don’t have to pay taxes on the income. They hope that if they keep you alive, some day you will make enough money to pay full retail price.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    Theres an economic theory used to set prices called Supply:Demand Equilibrium wherein you maximize profit by calculating a curve and generating a table where the axis are number of buyers and price bought at.

    If the good is a necessity then you can expect a large number of people will buy it regardless of how high the price is, if they have the money, giving the incentive to set the prices higher despite having less demand at that price range.

  • Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh no, I just looked it up and learned that I get my multi-thousand dollar per month medication for free thanks to a program sponsored by Nestle. I feel dirty. But I also need my medication.

    • vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 days ago

      Look at it differently, you’re taking advantage of Nestlé. They’re trying to make themselves look better with the program and adding one more person to their list of “who we’ve helped” won’t really have any impact on their attempt to sanitize themselves or their taxes. It will, however, have a big impact on you.

      Just don’t start telling everyone that nestle is paying for your meds. That would be helping them with their image.

      • Drusas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        You know, your comment was very helpful.

        I know that all of these megacorps sponsor all sorts of philanthropic causes for PR and tax purposes. But I also know how evil Nestle is and I don’t find it difficult to not buy their products. …until I just looked up who’s paying for my meds.

        But thank you, you are right. I’m using up their money and giving them nothing back.

  • shani66@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s better, from a capitalist’s pov, to sell something to a single person for a grand than it is to sell to a hundred for a dollar. Especially if that keeps misery high.

      • EldritchFeminity
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        It was so bad that companies could kick you off of insurance mid-treatment for something like cancer and then deny you for having a pre-existing condition.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Its even still better than if they asked thousands of patients a dollar.

      Less overhead.

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    They’re goal is to sell to each person for exactly the most that they can get the person to pay.
    A lot of people get the medication through insurance, meaning they’re just gouging another leach.
    The insurance will pay because the medicine is just cheaper than what it would cost them if you didn’t get it.

    If you don’t have insurance, they have programs to try to gouge you at more plausible rates that they refer to in compassionate language.

    If you’re a third world, they try to price gouge in terms affordable for the market.

    About the only place they charge a fair price is in places they think the government might just set price ceilings.

  • Willie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    But if they have more customers then they have to spend more resources making more product. So 1 customer at 1000x the price is more valuable than 1000 customers at the a lower price. If it costs 28 dollars to make a year’s worth of doses like this screenshot claims, then they’d make $42,222 charging a single customer the current price, while they’d only make $12,000 charging 1,000 customers the proposed price.

    So for the company to make more money than they are now, they’d need 3,519 new customers for every one current customer. Since Google says there are 1.2 million people with HIV in the United States, if they have more than 342 current customers in the united states, they are making more now than they could ever make at the proposed price. Therefore the amount of new customers is almost certainly not worth it to them.

    Money seems to ruin pretty much everything about healthcare.

  • als
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    When the choice is die other price gouged, people take the second option. Insurance likely pays this all in weird ways too. I’m sure some numbers were crunched to work out how many people they let die and how much more profit it’ll make them.

  • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    The government foots a lot of the bills, so patients need to apply for medical assistance. At least the people I’ve known.