Comment by peterbecich
13 hours ago
The higher manufacturer price of the eyeball-safe formulation is clearly justified, then, i.m.o. Also, is it the doctor's responsibility to assume risk to save the patient money?
13 hours ago
The higher manufacturer price of the eyeball-safe formulation is clearly justified, then, i.m.o. Also, is it the doctor's responsibility to assume risk to save the patient money?
Assuming the compounding process is inherently more at risk of contamination. It also gets complicated when the extreme prices are involved: what risk of infection balances out with the risk that the patient will not be treated due to cost or will suffer whatever negative consequences due to bearing the cost? One in two? Probably not. One in a billion? Probably.
Considering that the doctor was able to test the batches and verify contamination, it seems like this is an important step that was skipped by the pharmacy.
How does that justify a 30 fold increase?
If an individual Dr can get a batch checked while saving the patient money, it obviously isn't justified.