- Cape businessman known for starting NARS dies at 49 (2/23/17)9
- Apparent punch at girls basketball game propels lawmaker into action (2/21/17)4
- Business notebook: Owners ready to roll out the Barrel 131 (2/20/17)7
- Japanese restaurant up and running; owner surprised by fondness of sushi here (2/24/17)1
- SoutheastHEALTH, Washington University School of Medicine announce collaboration (2/24/17)23
- Missouri bill would limit transgender school bathroom access (2/22/17)48
- City issues precautionary boil order near Arena Park (2/23/17)
- Former KFVS12 reporter talks about recovery from eating disorder (2/23/17)11
- $22M bond issue would alter Jackson schools (2/22/17)13
- Two men crack market with local cage-free eggs (2/26/17)12
Advertising may lower drug costs due to quantity
To the editor:
The price of drugs seems outrageous to those of us in our twilight years. Gilbert Degenhardt should be applauded for his suggestions for lowering prices in his March 11 letter. The letter showed concern for a serious problem while offering a solution by advocating that advertising of drugs be prohibited.
On the surface, his suggestion seems to make a lot of sense. However, I am confused by my limited exposure to economics. Things have changed so much during the past 55 years that perhaps the benefits of advertising no longer apply.
When I was in school, we were led to believe that in order to bring the cost of manufacturing down more units should be made. A small output is expensive, but by adding a substantial quantity of units the cost of each item is less. Yet if they can't be sold there is no need to produce them.
Advertising facilitates distribution in huge quantities, causing the price to decline. If drugs were no longer advertised, then prices might go up.
Mound City, Ill.