Sociological problem EpiPen crisis: the prices have spiked and the CEO is making millions and millions of dollars off of it. The price used to be around 75 to $100 for a two-pack, but now it is around $600. Plus, its production cost is no more than $30. A rising number of consumers struggle to afford this costly product, although it is necessary to their lives and survival. Consumers’ madness is easily understood. Imagine being a parent of two children who have allergies. This implies that you have to fund multiple Epipens. Unfortunately, this situation is not uncommon. Moreover, this crisis is a social issue because it deals with every person who is bound to allergic reactions. Indeed, it is normal for a company to wish to make profits
…show more content…
The same thing would go for when this CEO announced that “the company was increasing financial assistance to patients to reduce their out-of-pocket costs.” Nonetheless, they would see the origin of this problem as the change of price. The price was fine, people were paying and the company was already making money, so why did they change it? It is important to make money, indeed, but they should do so without changing the community’s way of working. Also, another positive aspect is that “over the years, her [Heather Bresch] brash leadership style has bruised egos but also, some say, improved access to drugs and raised quality standards.” Thus, even though she might be seen as a villain, functionalists also agree that she had helped the community in a certain way. Although some initiatives have been put into action, they would still oversee this situation for change. The best solution to their eyes would probably be to bring back the price of the EpiPen as it was, or start by …show more content…
This way, I could ask questions to different CEOs of pharmaceutical companies on their values, their main interest, their methods used to make profits and other inquiries of the sort, while doing the same procedure with CEOs of drugstores. I would use interviews because it would allow me to conceive an even more precise case and get meaningful information from each of the two sides. Given the fact that I would look for qualitative data, I will probably be more inclined towards using semi-structured or unstructured interviews so that the conversation flows and takes its own course of mind, letting the true “personality” of the interviewee unfold naturally. After having done my interviews, using inductive logic, I would be able to regroup the data and make a conclusion out of the information. The advantages of interviews are that you obtain more personal answers with it than surveys, for instance. You get the reason behind the answer, which is often essential to the reasoning. Also, your results are much more precise than yes, no, or blue and green. This asset comes in handy when forming theories and conclusion on the subject.
On the other hand, even though interviews might provide me valid and detailed information, CEOs might be reluctant to share such information with me, whether it is because it would damage their company’s reputation or because of power relations. Power relations in particular is something I should be careful
The same thing would go for when this CEO announced that “the company was increasing financial assistance to patients to reduce their out-of-pocket costs.” Nonetheless, they would see the origin of this problem as the change of price. The price was fine, people were paying and the company was already making money, so why did they change it? It is important to make money, indeed, but they should do so without changing the community’s way of working. Also, another positive aspect is that “over the years, her [Heather Bresch] brash leadership style has bruised egos but also, some say, improved access to drugs and raised quality standards.” Thus, even though she might be seen as a villain, functionalists also agree that she had helped the community in a certain way. Although some initiatives have been put into action, they would still oversee this situation for change. The best solution to their eyes would probably be to bring back the price of the EpiPen as it was, or start by …show more content…
This way, I could ask questions to different CEOs of pharmaceutical companies on their values, their main interest, their methods used to make profits and other inquiries of the sort, while doing the same procedure with CEOs of drugstores. I would use interviews because it would allow me to conceive an even more precise case and get meaningful information from each of the two sides. Given the fact that I would look for qualitative data, I will probably be more inclined towards using semi-structured or unstructured interviews so that the conversation flows and takes its own course of mind, letting the true “personality” of the interviewee unfold naturally. After having done my interviews, using inductive logic, I would be able to regroup the data and make a conclusion out of the information. The advantages of interviews are that you obtain more personal answers with it than surveys, for instance. You get the reason behind the answer, which is often essential to the reasoning. Also, your results are much more precise than yes, no, or blue and green. This asset comes in handy when forming theories and conclusion on the subject.
On the other hand, even though interviews might provide me valid and detailed information, CEOs might be reluctant to share such information with me, whether it is because it would damage their company’s reputation or because of power relations. Power relations in particular is something I should be careful