I’ve started another thread to discuss this interesting issue as it’s getting off the topic of the original thread.
Paul.karen said (in the “Stark law” thread):
When we develop medicines and Canada and the rest of the world pay a 1/4 of what Americans have to pay that is ridiculous. Us Americans pay for the lab work the logistics the ingredients and the trails to test new drugs which can run into millions if not billions of dollars. Then when the pills are approved for the market we pay (example) Cozar American price $15 dollars a pill Price for the rest of the world $ 4 dollars a pill. (is this fair)No, it’s not fair. It’s anything but fair. On the other hand, I think everyone’s better off for this system whereby the US pays the lion’s share, including Americans.
Prices are set to maximise the producers’ profits. Too high a price leads to a low demand, hence low revenues and lower profits. Too low a price leads to a low margin which constrains profits. There’s an optimum price that maximises profits. That price varies according to the country where the medicines are sold; it's higher in the US than in other countries. So the producers have an incentive to set prices according to the country where their goods are sold.
Maximising producer profits means they have more money and more incentive to develop more cures than if everyone paid the same price. Americans, although screwed, still gain because they have more opportunities to be cured of their maladies. It may not be fair that others get a free ride, but they and others are all better off.
Of course, the price difference only exists because the market for medicines is not free. If it were free, arbitragers would trade between differently priced markets to bring the prices almost into line.
In economic terms, the producers enjoy a monopoly of supply for a limited period and can set prices to whatever they like. The only partial counter is a monopsony purchaser, such as we have in the UK in the form of the NHS.
Can I just say a sincere thanks to US taxpayers?