Overview
Each year, approximately 3.6 million people within the United States find themselves in need of the EpiPen, which is an epinephrine auto-injector. The company involved in the production of the EpiPen, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, has increased the price of this life-saving treatment sharply between 2009 and 2016. The price increase has meant that majority of the people, needing this treatment, are not in any position to afford the same. That has raised serious questions on the condition of the pharmaceutical industry within the United States and whether it is focused on profits for the multinational companies or whether it seeks to protect the consumers.
Consumer Harm
From a statistical point of view, it remains clear that the number of people that rely on the EpiPen is notably high. The EpiPen is important for purposes of treating anaphylactic reactions resulting from allergens; thus, meaning that lack of access to the treatment would have serious implications in terms of death for millions of people. The fact that Mylan Pharmaceuticals has increased the price of this life-saving treatment to an all-time high means that most of the people requiring the treatment may find themselves lacking the treatment. The ultimate harm is that the number of people dying as a result of anaphylactic reactions would increase.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Source of Detriment
The laws governing the pharmaceutical industry within the United States have failed in their bid to protecting the consumers considering that they tend to favor the big pharmaceutical companies. In this case, it is clear that the decision by Mylan Pharmaceuticals to increase the price of the EpiPen is governed by the need for the company to make profits with little or no regard for the harm that this is causing the consumers of the treatment. It is clear that the decision by Mylan Pharmaceuticals to increase the price of the treatment is not controlled by any government agency. The laws favor the company in its bid to setting the price of the medication without having to consider the expectations in terms of protecting the consumers.
Policy Options
Based on the controversy, the following are some of the policy options:
Implementation of price regulations for such treatments and medication considering the number of people that would be affected by such price hikes.
Providing subsidies to persons that may rely on such medication as a way of ensuring that they are in a position allowing them to afford the same.
Seeking alternative treatments with the focus being towards ensuring that research institutions are well funded in their bid to finding alternative forms of treatment.
Recommendation
From an analysis of the three policy options, the best option that would have best possible outcomes is the implementation of price regulations for such treatments and medication considering the number of people that would be affected by such price hikes. The option would be considered as being the best because it does not only reflect on the EpiPen but would also seek to protect consumers that rely on other medications and treatments. The adoption of this policy would not only apply to this case but would apply to the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. That means that pharmaceutical companies would be expected to price their treatments and medications based on the guidelines given by the FDA as a way of ensuring that the consumers do not suffer in the long run.
