The insulin racket: why a drug made free 100 years ago is recently expensive

Re:The insulin racket: why a drug made free 100 years ago is... by btilly on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @12:35PM (#20275952)

If I were an insurance company, I'd consider buying a small pharma outfit and target it at these orphan drugs just to save money.

Here is why you'd rethink that position.

By law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85% of their revenue on patient care. Which means that their potential profits are limited by medical expenses paid out. As long as they have properly projected and accounted for the medical expenses in their business model, they therefore have a financial incentive to let expenses be high.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The insulin racket: why a drug made free 100 years ago is... by kurthr on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @12:52PM (#20276167)

Yes, insurance companies are not on your side. They want all prices to rise so their competitors pay the same... and we wonder why there is price fixing?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The insulin racket: why a drug made free 100 years ago is... by JamesBarney on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @01:27PM (#20276608)

But then their rates wouldn't be competitive and people would switch insurance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The insulin racket: why a drug made free 100 years ago is... by BurningFrog on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @07:07PM (#20280149)

That might be a decent argument for another discussion.

Spending $43,354 for something and getting a $30 copay in return will never be a part of any clever scheme to fleece anyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The insulin racket: why a drug made free 100 years ago is... by burnte on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @03:12PM (#20277764)

The pharma company is a standalone subsidiary, the insurance company is the only customer. The profits they keep go to the shareholders, bypassing the 85% rule.

[ Parent | on HN ]