(02-06-2019, 11:29 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(02-06-2019, 07:31 PM)jj82284 Wrote: The obstacles to entry into the marketplace allow 3 companies to play 3 card Monte with patterns on the latest irritation of insulin.  Couple that with the insulation of the consumer from the actual price of the product (through health insurance) and u have an environment where drugs like insulin (that don't naturally lend themselves to cheaper generic versions) increase in cost over time.  

It's funny how in mixed economies you have regulatory policy that insulates companies from competative pressure and somehow it's the market side that is declared deficient.

There are more than three pharma companies and more than three people capable of gathering the capital needed to get a new insulin to market.

Things might be better if more doctors and pharmacists counseled their patients that the different forms of insulin were interchangeable, if that were true.  I don't know if it is.

Things also might be better if we came to see rebates offered by big Pharma to insurers, but not to individuals, as kickbacks. Medicare and Medicaid don't accept rebates because they look like bribes.  Private insurance should follow the same rule.

True, but from what I read only 3 make insulin. 

Also, the nature of insulin production and the constant refining of the formulation actually keep the base cost high.  

Yes, patients should be counseled on cost, but u have a business model where in most cases the patient isn't actually exposed to the cost.  That's why drug reps take doctors on golf trips not patients.

---