- Obama shortens sentence of inmate from Cape (1/19/17)9
- Two subjects of interest in 1992 homicide to take polygraph tests (1/15/17)8
- Business notebook: Jackson salon owner also opens a clothing store (1/16/17)
- Area hospitals hope a box helps prevent infant deaths (1/19/17)6
- Cape SportsPlex contractor offers a look at the project (1/15/17)14
- Meat-processing plant faces $70K penalty for Clean Water Act violations (1/17/17)4
- Southeast to lose $3.5 million from state in budget cuts (1/18/17)21
- Local students to perform with choir at inauguration (1/19/17)3
- Subjects of interest in 1992 killing take polygraph tests; results not revealed (1/18/17)2
- Governor cuts $146 million, colleges take hit (1/17/17)
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.