Revisiting: List price versus negotiated price versus what you pay — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Working notes on List price versus negotiated price rather than a conclusion. I would rather post the reasoning while it can still be corrected than post the answer once I am committed to it.
Everything below is checkable. Where I have taken a figure from somewhere else I have said where; where I have estimated, I have said that too.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The cost of an independent submission is worth stating in these threads, because it is the main reason people do not do it.
Post #3 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Bulk pricing tiers are published by some suppliers and negotiated by others, and asking costs nothing.
Comparing a licensed product's price to a research-use-only preparation's price is comparing two different things, and the difference is most of the explanation.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
The number people quote for List price versus negotiated price is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
Where a price includes consultation, device and follow-up, saying so makes a comparison possible. Most quoted figures do not.
Adding the measurement that post #8 says would settle it.
Cost per milligram is the only comparison that survives format differences, but even then it needs care. A pen and a vial are not the same product and cannot be compared on price per milligram alone because dead volume, wastage, and number of doses actually obtainable differ.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
One caution on List price versus negotiated price: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Larger orders shift risk as well as price, because more of your material then comes from one lot.
Whatever the answer on List price versus negotiated price turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
List prices versus negotiated prices: the price a pharmaceutical company publishes and the price an insurance company or pharmacy actually pays differ substantially. List price is not what anyone pays.
That is all I can say without guessing.
Answering the question post #20 raises rather than the one it answers.
Pharmacy acquisition cost: a pharmacy pays less than the patient pays, even at insurance rates. That margin is where the pharmacy's costs and profit live.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
I changed my mind about List price versus negotiated price after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Post #23 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Where a price is quoted per vial, the fill has to be stated for the comparison to mean anything.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Price differences within a market are usually about scale, documentation and logistics rather than about anything mysterious.
Source for the List price versus negotiated price figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I had written a reply contradicting post #23 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for List price versus negotiated price post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Confirming post #27 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The most useful pricing posts here are the ones that show the arithmetic rather than the conclusion.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why the cheapest option is often not the cheapest
Why the cheapest option is often not the cheapest I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Cheapest option: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have…
|
+19 | 23 | 1.2k | 12h |
|
Price changes over 2025 and 2026, tabulated and dated — does this still hold?
Price changes over 2025 and 2026, tabulated and dated — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Documenting an access outcome, dated,…
|
+147 | 156 | 18k | 3mo |
|
[2026 update] Comparing prices across jurisdictions without misleading yourself
On the subject in the title: Comparing prices across jurisdictions without misleading yourself Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing prices across jurisdictions keeps being re-asked here and I…
|
2 | 809 | 23h | |
|
Price changes over 2025 and 2026, tabulated and dated
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Price changes over 2025 and 2026, tabulated and dated Everything below is what sits behind that. Documenting an access outcome, dated, because everything in this…
|
+4 | 8 | 658 | 14mo |
|
Second pass at: Manufacturer assistance programmes and their eligibility rules
Second pass at: Manufacturer assistance programmes and their eligibility rules — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+13 | 17 | 1.8k | 16mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Prior authorisation: what the criteria usually require
Prior authorisation: what the criteria usually require — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Prior authorisation.…
|
+95 | 100 | 9.1k | 10h |
|
Coming back to: A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases Everything below is what sits behind that. Community side-effect dataset — I have the observation…
|
+96 | 101 | 33k | 2d |
|
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold?
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Asking what a regulator's document actually says,…
|
+36 | 40 | 37k | 11mo |
|
NHS criteria and how they are applied in practice — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: NHS criteria and how they are applied in practice — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A narrow question about NHS criteria, deliberately…
|
+11 | 15 | 11k | 9mo |
|
Contributing data without breaching anyone's privacy — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Contributing data without breaching anyone's privacy — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Contributing data without…
|
2 | 58k | 17mo |