Does a company have a right to price their products at any level they want?

No, not when lives are at stake. Absolutely not.

Yes and no. Usually the price depends on demand and what the market will allow. If a company wants to price themselves out of the market and go broke doing it, that’s their business. But if a company is taking unfair advantage of people, then it is criminal, or should be. IMHO. (Extortion, blackmail.)

I would be ok with that as long as it is in the public domain and anyone else can come along and undercut the price as they saw fit. If you are going to give them an exclusive on it then no, they should not be able to.

Yeah, someone posted this http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/productdetailpom.aspx?packid=53970 and I think people will simply buy the much cheaper version. As @kritiper says, he is just going to price himself out of the market. Even rich people won’t pay the higher cost if there is something similar at a much cheaper price.
I also figure that patents mean very little in todays markert. Any company willing to steal it and develop it will face very little consequences and can make a killing out of his ignorance.

Generally speaking yes, but the free market doesn’t operate well in the drugs industry and so prices should be regulated to prevent this sort of abuse from happening.

He ended up lowering the price (not sure to what), yesterday, because of the outcry.

I still think what he did was awful and greedy.

Does he have the right? I’d say yes, but that doesn’t make it right.

The answer to your question is a resounding yes. My comment to the drug company you referenced is that the company that bought that miracle drug clearly explains that they raised the price to the level they is not because of obvious greed but because very few patients rely on the drug and they also say they raised the price so they can use the money they gain to to develop better treatments for toxoplasmosis, with fewer side effects.

“This isn’t the greedy drug company trying to gouge patients, it is us trying to stay in business,”

That said…consumers essentially set the price for any product on the market. A company can charge exorbitant prices for a product for large profits on fewer items sold. Will those profits on fewer items sold be enough to sustain that company…only time will tell. On the other side of the spectrum a company can price their product lower and potentially earn less profit and again will those lower profits on more items sold be enough to sustain that company…only time will tell. Usually most successful companies find equilibrium at a sweet spot that earns sufficient profits to sell their products that consumers support and approve of. The story you cite here is atypical.

Who would argue that they do not have such a right. They can also give it away if they choose.

On occasion I will use colchicine for gout. Colchicine is derived from saffron and has been for thousands of years. It was described as a treatment in the Ebers Papyrus (circa 1500 BC, and Egyptian medical papyrus).
It used to be an inexpensive (and still is everywhere except in the US), effective single ingredient oral medication but in 2009 URL Pharma submitted it to the FDA and was granted a patent on it.
In addition to being granted a patent on something that was, and should have remained, in the public domain URL sued for, and was granted. an exclusive on this drug. In September 2010, the FDA ordered a halt to marketing unapproved single-ingredient oral colchicine.
Now, understand it has been in use for a long, long time and no changes were made, but now URL was still granted an exclusive on it.
URL jacked the price from $0.09/tablet to $4.85/tablet and this one move increased annual costs for the drug to U.S. state Medicaid programs from $1 million to $50 million. Medicare also paid significantly higher costs making this a direct money-loser for the government. Untold millions more were stolen from those who did not have insurance or use it to pay for the medication directly.
In addition to being granted a patent on something that was, and should have remained in the public domain, URL sued for, and was granted. an exclusive on this drug. In September 2010, the FDA ordered a halt to marketing unapproved single-ingredient oral colchicine.
As I said earlier, I have no problem with a company asking more for their product unless like was done in this case, they pay off enough people to keep others from competing with them. No competition, no exclusives.

No, they don’t have the right when there is a government imposed monopoly.

Price wherever you want if you are willing to compete.

Theoretically, companies should be allowed to price their products wherever they want.
In practice, when a company boosts the price 5,500%, the Government will look at it, and begin considering regulating, which is the last thing the company wants.
The fact that this drug was available to be manufactured as a generic is important, but I imagine it takes a while for a company to gear up and make enough.
it didn’t help that the CEO, or whatever he was, was a smug little fuck.

@filmfann it didn’t help that the CEO, or whatever he was, was IS a smug little fuck.

While the drug is in the generic domain, he has exclusive US licensing from an FDA program to encourage “orphan drug” manufacturing. Hence, a governemnt sponsored monopoly.

Well apparently smug or not, he backed down due to public outcry.

They have a right in America if there is no law regulating it. Possibly, one could argue it’s gouging, since it takes advantage of a desperate situation. Technically, gouging is illegal, but I’d think it’s a tricky thing to prove with almost any good or service.

I hope the media and grass roots organizations continue to expose gouging and hidden fees in the medical field. I wish there was a weekly 60 minute program on TV about it.

@zenvelo @filmfann could not be more right that he is a smug little fuck

Remember this Q?

No real difference, and as far as I know the drugs are still that expensive.