Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
I actually had that part in my post but thought it might be too distracting for some.
Does that mean a drug that should cost 800€ is sold for 30€ to a smaller number of people for years and noone had a problem with the company making a 730€ loss with each sale? Possibly even a bigger loss since 800€ is the price they apparently calculated for selling it on an even larger market due to the newly found benefits for other patients. IMO if that were the case, they could have just pulled the original drug even earlier since noone stopped them from doing that.
As I said before the prices are regulated by government - however Governments have a hard time persuading the companies to make a loss on some products so instead they make a "deal" - the deal is basically they have to charge X for drugs treating illness Y however they are allowed to gouge on treatments for illness A - if it is later discovered X can also treat A then the price will go up to cover the costs of other regulated products (the whole rebranding thing is the way they are allowed to do this)

So yes the companies have a problem with making a loss on a particular sale but they cover it by gouging on another type entirely to cover the costs.

Having now read the article you linked (sorry didnt see the link first time through ) it seems the US system is even more complicated by insurance companies getting to pick which drugs they cover... just another good reason to keep insurance companies out of health care imo...