![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslThis reminds me of the "identify the fallacies" part of the GRE Writing section
from here
The question, of course, is why over-the-counter Claritin would be more expensive. Perhaps this is a good case for archeological economists.
For one thing, they sell more, so they become cheaper to mass-produce... OTOH, being the only over-the-counter drug of its kind, it enjoys a sort of monopoly.
from here
When Claritin recently became available without a prescription, the health insurance industry and the companies they cover were licking their chops over the nearly $1 billion in prescription cost savings they'll enjoy each year. As for allergy sufferers, instead of a $15 to $20 co-payment to be diagnosed and prescribed the medication, they now have to pay around $1 per pill for over-the-counter Claritin, which adds up to hundreds of dollars per allergy season. While this plan is one heck of a deal for the HMOs, it perhaps can best be described as a whopping tax increase on average Americans with allergies.
The question, of course, is why over-the-counter Claritin would be more expensive. Perhaps this is a good case for archeological economists.
For one thing, they sell more, so they become cheaper to mass-produce... OTOH, being the only over-the-counter drug of its kind, it enjoys a sort of monopoly.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-01 06:27 pm (UTC)Now here's the real puzzler: why, on the news that Claritin was going OTC, did many prescription benefits immediately supercede it with Clarinex, whos primary feature is that it is sufficiently distinct from Claritin to be separately patentable?