• OutsizedWalrus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, it’s expensive because the value it provides.

    They’re positioning it based on the length of hospital stay it prevents. In that perspective, this is an absolute bargain. For the most part, they’re selling insurance that $1.4k is far cheaper than even one additional night in the hospital. Insurance is willing to pay because it saves them loads of money. For uninsured and underinsured, it sounds like they’re basically not charging.

    • Canuck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only point I’d add is drugs cost more than they are to produce because of R&D costs, which must be recuperated. If costs are high, and volume is low, it means larger markup over the cost to manufacture.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The R&D costs were largely already paid by tax-payer funded research grants and, in this case, additional emergency funding from governments. This is especially the case in the US, where the government is also legally required to hand over patents for government developed drugs to private companies that did none of the work.