This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Biosimilars and future generics: as patents expire, biosimilar and generic versions might become available and prices might fall. That has already happened for some proteins; incretin agonist pricing might follow.
List prices versus negotiated prices: the price a pharmaceutical company publishes and the price an insurance company or pharmacy actually pays differ substantially. List price is not what anyone pays.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Worth separating two things that post #33 runs together.
Pharmacy acquisition cost: a pharmacy pays less than the patient pays, even at insurance rates. That margin is where the pharmacy's costs and profit live.
Compute cost per delivered dose at your dose if you want a number you can act on. That requires knowing your dose, vial volume, and whether you are using a vial or a pen.
Cost per milligram is the only comparison that survives format differences, but even then it needs care. A pen and a vial are not the same product and cannot be compared on price per milligram alone because dead volume, wastage, and number of doses actually obtainable differ.
Picking up post #37: that is the part I would want checked first.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
I read post #40 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
List prices versus negotiated prices: the price a pharmaceutical company publishes and the price an insurance company or pharmacy actually pays differ substantially. List price is not what anyone pays.
post #42 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Pharmacy acquisition cost: a pharmacy pays less than the patient pays, even at insurance rates. That margin is where the pharmacy's costs and profit live.
Price variation between pharmacies: identical prescriptions can cost different amounts at different pharmacies because pharmacies negotiate individually with insurers and manufacturers.
Coming back to post #44, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
International pricing: the same compound costs very different amounts in different countries because healthcare systems and regulatory frameworks differ. Generally, US prices are higher than other developed nations.
post #46 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Biosimilars and future generics: as patents expire, biosimilar and generic versions might become available and prices might fall. That has already happened for some proteins; incretin agonist pricing might follow.
This follows post #46 rather than contradicting it.
Pharmacy acquisition cost: a pharmacy pays less than the patient pays, even at insurance rates. That margin is where the pharmacy's costs and profit live.
Discount programmes and coupons: manufacturers often offer coupons that reduce out-of-pocket costs if insurance is not covering or is covering at a high copay. These have eligibility restrictions but can save money.
Cost per milligram is the only comparison that survives format differences, but even then it needs care. A pen and a vial are not the same product and cannot be compared on price per milligram alone because dead volume, wastage, and number of doses actually obtainable differ.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
International pricing: the same compound costs very different amounts in different countries because healthcare systems and regulatory frameworks differ. Generally, US prices are higher than other developed nations.
Coming back to post #55, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Picking up post #55: that is the part I would want checked first.
Biosimilars and future generics: as patents expire, biosimilar and generic versions might become available and prices might fall. That has already happened for some proteins; incretin agonist pricing might follow.
Worth separating two things that post #55 runs together.
Subscription services and subscriptions: some online clinics bundle compounds into subscription models with different pricing. Understanding the terms before committing matters.
post #59 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.