Costco's pharmacy seems to kick everyone else's asses when it comes to prices.

(Relatedly, my aunt forwarded me an e-mail about the markup on drug prices, and how some drugs are "marked up" more than 3,000% [not a typo] from the cost of manufacturing the active ingredient. And I chose not to reply that I am stunned by her willful ignorance of other costs such as: inactive ingredients, pill bottles, labels on the bottles, ink to print the labels on the bottles, people who pack the bottles in boxes, cost of boxes, people who drive the truck to get the boxes to the pharmacies, gas and insurance for those trucks, cost of those trucks, people who work in the pharmacy and stock the shelves and dispense the prescriptions accurately so YOU DON'T DIE, cost of the physical pharmacy building, cost to keep the lights and heat on in the pharmacy, etc., etc., etc.

But no, drug companies are the devil because they don't charge 1 cent a pill for Lipitor.)

(I should note that I think some drugs are overpriced, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend that Pfizer should be charging the customer literally ONLY what the cost of the active drug ingredient is.)

I don't know if it applies to Ambien, but Target is really touting their $4 generic prices.

bonny, I got your e-mail, and I just haven't had time to respond because work is kicking all of our asses. (And having my ass kicked would be easier to deal with it my sinuses weren't made of ALL THE EVIL.)

Seriously, Steph. No hurry at all, if at all. I've decide not to be freaked out, you know?

I happen to love Target pharmacy because of the pill bottles. I know that is frivolous.

I should note that I think some drugs are overpriced, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend that Pfizer should be charging the customer literally ONLY what the cost of the active drug ingredient is.)

Hahahah! Yes. I mean, I totally agree that drug companies often overprice their drugs and do shady things to keep patents going, etc etc. But since my salary comes from R&D money to make those drugs get to the market in the first place...Does she also think eBooks and music should be free, since there's no book or CD involved? (I support them being CHEAPER due to those things, but surely not free)

Advertising drugs, from what I understand, is bad for their costs. But the active ingredient has probably not even been shaped into pills/gelcaps...whatever, at that stage. I'm not that interested in filling my shower with antacid.

Does she also think eBooks and music should be free, since there's no book or CD involved? (I support them being CHEAPER due to those things, but surely not free)

Probably, but I'm glad I don't actually know.

Advertising drugs, from what I understand, is bad for their costs.

Ooh, yes, this very much. Especially ads to consumers. Ads to doctors are iffy (and apparently have more influence on them than I'd like), but I understand wanting to get your product and any benefits it may have over other products out there...but really it should be done in the more traditional (and still happens!) way of "Here! I am at your doctor conference for oncology with my poster about how we did a study showing our drug is better than the other drug! Stop by and read my scientific paper, if you'd like!"

"Here! I am at your doctor conference for oncology with my poster about how we did a study showing our drug is better than the other drug! Stop by and read my scientific paper, if you'd like!"

Drug companies buy very large quantities of article reprints from us for this very reason (that, and sales visits to physicians' offices). "Look! Our drug was shown in this paper to be statistically superior to placebo! You should start prescribing it!"