Pharmaceutical companies (like airlines) charge what the market will bear. And let’s face it, a lot of the “new” drugs are simply an old drug with a small substitution out on the periphery that doesn’t really change much, like a thiophene ring for a benzene ring, not really a “new” drug, but a tiny difference that will enable the company to extend the patent and monopoly. Meantime, you buy up or buy off competitors who might want to produce a generic version of the former drug.

H€LL, take something like the epipen - currently selling for around $600 for a two pak, maybe $200 for the approved generic version..

alt=""https://i.postimg.cc/XqZV71P7/IMG-7796.jpg

The active ingredient - epinephrine was patented 122 years ago. Autoinjectors were developed by the Army for nerve gas treatment in 1959, first with the AtroPen (for atropine) and later for 2-PAM chloride.

Actual cost for an epinephrine autoinjectot is under $5.

And the company making it today isn’t even the one that developed it, they just bought it and promptly started jacking up the prices:

https://www.businessinsider.com/epip...percent-2016-8

No way should insurance providers have a publicly traded profit incentive. National health care program, similar to Tricare. Eliminate the state fiefdoms for insurance companies.

You get a premium refund to cover the cost of gym memberships, fitness clubs, etc.

Every two years you have to do a physical fitness test and medical eval to determine health and fitness level, BMI, etc. The results of this test determine your insurance premiums.

Waivers for pre existing conditions that are genetic or unpreventable (metabolic, drug, smoking, diet induced, etc don’t count).

Those health tests will cost a lot more money than they save. Kind of like requiring a drug test for people on welfare. Makes for a good sound bite, but doesn't actually save money.

orrr we could just go back to pre-ACA and also make health insurance compete instead of monopolize

sure - and while you are add it increased premiums or coverage exclusions for “risky” activities like mountain biking, skiing and maybe even flying GA.

I'm starting to think that they think it might be worth it. Probably the only moment in time that this type of deal would ever be approved, and that's pretty special from a business perspective.

They do it for life insurance…

Our personal accident insurance excludes anything caused while operating a general aviation aircraft.

Any Pharma person will tell you the money is in the treatment not the cure. Seems obvious to me, but reading some comments here perhaps it is not that intuitive….

But I agree, I would welcome that. There has to be more incentive (in our country at least) than “it’s just the right thing to do.”

exactly …..