Starbucks is rarely criticized for the differences between prices one finds in cafes across the globe. As of recently, Mylan faces a maelstrom of backlash for that very same business practice. Although EpiPens are objectively more of a necessity to many Americans today who face the sting of price discrimination, both businesses are engaging in a common tool for profit maximization. After all, both are beholden to the purpose of a business: to increase shareholder wealth. Thus, both should be allowed to do so. It should be noted that Mylan is not exploiting a monopoly, but simply capitalizing upon their unique brand success. Their marketing investments are credited with making the EpiPen “so well known among people with allergies that it had become a genericized trademark, or the “Kleenex” of autoinjectors” (Steenburgh, 2). As a result of this, EpiPen revenue increased over five-fold and the number of patients using it grew over 67% (2). There has been several other autoinjector products on the market, but none has managed to capture the same success in technology or brand …show more content…
As stated on page 5, shares decreased by 10% in one week, indicated a growing discontent among consumers. This is further corroborated by the 72% of survey respondents who refer to drug prices as “unreasonable” (4). If this practice is found to be hurting the shareholder interests, or incentives are implemented to lower prices, Mylan might do so anyway. In short, just because Mylan is allowed to unpopularly price discriminate does not guarantee that it will continue unchecked. The company has already implemented the “My EpiPen Savings Card” to defray costs (4), and steps like this will likely continue if the current stock and publicity trends don’t