Price changes over 2025 and 2026, tabulated and dated — does this still hold? posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
post #61 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Coming back to post #61, 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.
Worth separating two things that post #61 runs together.
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 #65 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
On post #65 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
post #72 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #70 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #74 runs together.
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.
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.
I read post #79 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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 #79 rather than contradicting it.
Subscription services and subscriptions: some online clinics bundle compounds into subscription models with different pricing. Understanding the terms before committing matters.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #83, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
post #87 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
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.