That is, practically all of the economic cost is upfront investment and the replication cost is non-existent.
expensive medication Apart from biologic drugs, most small molecule compounds are dirt cheap to produce.
Also know that you can't "extrapolate" and need actual data based on regulations of the big 3 geographies (US, Europe, Japan). Also, these agencies are extremely conservative when it comes to what impurities should be considered acceptable and at what levels they should be.
Not saying they are necessarily wrong, but this is another constraints.
Certain classes of drugs such as anti-arrhythmics or drugs like warfarin are dosing critical to the point where I would not want them if they were out of date.
I worked in pharmaceuticals in a medically underserved community for a couple of years.
Everyone I knew participated when they had short dated samples.
While reps could not distribute outdated samples, doctors had much more latitude in how they dealt with them.So, what you pay for your drugs has almost no relationship to how much it costs to produce.You are paying for patents, market exclusivity and the whole system that goes with it (the pharma companies are not the only ones benefiting from it).It was one of those rare and wonderful situations that was good for patients, created good will for reps and was all completely within regulations.I should say this was some years ago and regulations may have changed since then.Because of this, there is little economic sense in trying to preserve drugs for longer (which would require more extremely expensive trials), when you can just trash the drugs and order up a new batch that has a combined msrp of 0M for k.