have recently been deregulated, also have programs in place by which low-income consumers receive lower rates.
2. Medical providers now, more than ever, are faced with using expensive technology to save and extend lives. If a patient cannot afford an organ transplant, but needs one to survive, should society pay for it? Or is it the responsibility of private hospitals to provide some charity to patients? Should the patient be denied care? This is the same question that must be asked of the drug corporations. There is a significant cost associated with developing and bringing a drug to market even when may be only a small market for that drug. Merck is being criticized for having increased its prices on its most popular drugs at a rate which exceeded inflation, but the fact that its overall average was in keeping with inflation implies that less popular drugs, which still have a high development cost, did not see the same price increases.
If the technology is available to save lives, or if a drug has been developed which has important benefit in the field, then there is indeed some moral responsibility to market the drug at a fair price. If companies cannot recoup their investment, however, they are less likely to pursue the development of drugs with only a limited market potential. A program needs to be developed by which drug companies can continue to realize enough profit to justify their research and development, but which ensures that those who need particular treatments have access to that treatment.
3. Increasing the price of a best-selling ulcer drug by 7.2 percent over the past year can be justified economically as a way to subsidize the cost of marketing drugs which are not as popular. The revenues from the ulcer drug can be reinvested in the company to develop additional drugs which may have only li
...