I'm confused. The article is about a drug that was sold at price X (13.5) that is now offered at price Y (750).
Now, in my world every rational person has to see that this is insane. There's no way that the previous price was even remotely possible (even with a loss) that requires the new price.
I don't see any data that supports your 'no one would be willing to make it for less' argument. The only reasons that doesn't seem to happen are either technical (the monopoly on the drugs manufacturing process) or legal (can't do that or you have to pay for .. creating cheaper drugs). Can you back your unlikely scenario? Looking at the article in question, is 750 the 'right' price and no one's willing to create the drug for less? Were they losing about 700 a pop before they increased the price?
I don't see any data that supports your 'no one would be willing to make it for less' argument.
There are currently no other companies that are willing to make and sell the drug.
* The only reasons that doesn't seem to happen are either technical (the monopoly on the drugs manufacturing process) or legal (can't do that or you have to pay for .. creating cheaper drugs).*
The patent is expired, and saying "monopoly" is describing an outcome, not an input. Yes, it's a monopoly, because no other company is willing to go into that market right now.
Looking at the article in question, is 750 the 'right' price and no one's willing to create the drug for less?
I would deny that any price is "right". If you want to refer to "right", define it and give a way to calculate what price can be right.
As I said in the other comment, there's no good system to determine who should capture the value from a product that costs less to make than it's worth to purchasers, other than a free market.
Let's take this apart. I'm not an expert, not on drug creation nor on .. 'free market' theories.
1) I'm not convinced that no one is interested to create the drug. Numerous people in this very discussion list issues to create a 'replacement' drug, even if the patent is expired. If they are correct (see disclaimer above) that might be a reason why others haven't tried it - or why they haven't succeeded yet.
2) 'Right' price is ambiguous, I agree. In my world, drug prices are ethic problems and have no connection to the so-called free market. No, a working, helping, proven drug cannot cost hundreds of $currency. We can discuss about the need to offset the R&D costs and I'm fine with drugs that costs my health insurance a ~largish~ sum, as long as the end user can get instant and easy access to the drug.
Your comments about putting a price on a person's life and your opinions on drug prices - as far as I can follow! - are impossible to understand from this person's pov. The lack of empathy and the trust in random business/market theoretical stuff to find a reasonable solution for the access to drugs that might very well save lives - that just doesn't compute, doesn't make sense in my world.
I don't believe in free markets. I certainly don't believe in free markets when we're talking about the basic needs of each and every human (for the sake of the argument let's limit this to nutrition and health for now). Health care should be free. Drugs should be affordable. Changing the price of a drug that was obviously doing okay (it was on the 'free market', right?) and multiplying the price by 65, because .. why not? .. is immoral and should be illegal. There's no 'value' to 'capture'. We're talking about a product that the company obviously produced with some sort of margin for ~13.5~ and that benefits the population at large - or at least the subset of the population that requires the drug. There is _no_ reason to increase the price, especially by that ridiculous value, other than inhuman greed. But maybe (see disclaimer) that's what a 'free market' is about - I wouldn't know.
Numerous people in this very discussion list issues to create a 'replacement' drug, even if the patent is expired. If they are correct (see disclaimer above) that might be a reason why others haven't tried it - or why they haven't succeeded yet.
Replace interested with "no one is interested and able". The reasons don't matter (insofar as they cannot be changed), the fact is that no one else is making them.
The lack of empathy and the trust in random business/market theoretical stuff to find a reasonable solution for the access to drugs that might very well save lives - that just doesn't compute, doesn't make sense in my world.
This doesn't come from a lack of empathy. I am (or try to emulate) a utilitarianist. To my mind, the question to ask is "which system will produce better outcomes overall"?
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, this particular example has them covering the cost of the drug for anyone who can't afford it; so the value of a life is irrelevant. The question is "is it better for a health insurance company or the drug manufacturer to have the money?" This doesn't seem obvious.
On the other hand, any claims of "fairness" fail to compute. If doing X improves the world, who cares if it makes things less fair?
Health care should be free.
The world should be perfect. I agree. Now, do you have any way of bringing the world to perfection? Saying "Health care should be free" while ignoring the fact that currently, health care needs to be rationed, does nobody any good.
Who pays for health care, if it's free? Who becomes a doctor, a researcher, if the prices are driven down by politicians with similar arguments to yours?
There's no 'value' to 'capture'.
That sounds to me like saying that every drug company should be selling at cost or close to cost. The problem with that is that there's then much less incentive for investors to fund pharmaceutical startups, which leads to less new drugs being developed, and so on.
You can't ignore economics when building your utopia.
Now, in my world every rational person has to see that this is insane. There's no way that the previous price was even remotely possible (even with a loss) that requires the new price.
I don't see any data that supports your 'no one would be willing to make it for less' argument. The only reasons that doesn't seem to happen are either technical (the monopoly on the drugs manufacturing process) or legal (can't do that or you have to pay for .. creating cheaper drugs). Can you back your unlikely scenario? Looking at the article in question, is 750 the 'right' price and no one's willing to create the drug for less? Were they losing about 700 a pop before they increased the price?
What. The. Hell?