Strategic Pricing Consultation for Mylan's EpiPen

Kylah Gooden

EpiPen Case

The Mylan EpiPen price controversy is a clear example of what happens when traditional pricing logic collides with issues of fairness, visibility, and trust. From an economic perspective, demand for EpiPens is highly inelastic, which allowed Mylan to raise prices without losing many customers. However, because the product is used in life-or-death situations, consumers, policymakers, and the media evaluated those price increases very differently. The backlash was not only about the price itself, but also about how that price was justified and communicated.

Heather Bresch should focus on reshaping how EpiPen pricing is perceived while ensuring the product remains sustainable over the long term. The most damaging mistake Mylan made was allowing the list price to rise so dramatically while relying on savings cards and rebates to argue that “most people do not actually pay that price.” Even if this is technically true, the highly visible list price became the focal point of public outrage. Freezing future price increases and lowering the headline list price or introducing a clearly labeled lower-priced alternative—would reduce the perception that Mylan is taking advantage of patients who have no real choice in an emergency. This approach would also help restore price credibility by signaling that the company values stability and access over aggressive short-term gains.

This strategy does involve risk. Lowering the list price would likely reduce short-term revenue and require Mylan to unwind parts of its existing rebate-driven pricing structure. However, a lower list price also sets a new reference price for consumers, which can strengthen Mylan’s position by making entry less attractive for potential competitors who would need to undercut an already lower headline price. The greater risk lies in maintaining the current system: continued reputational damage increases the likelihood of regulatory scrutiny, weakens trust among key stakeholders, and threatens Mylan’s long-term freedom to operate. For a company selling a life-saving product, maintaining legitimacy is just as important as protecting margins.

Mylan should also change how discounts are set up in their pricing policy. The current system makes the list price and the price actually paid very different, which makes the pricing model seem confusing and unfair, especially for patients who don't have insurance or have high-deductible plans. Mylan should stop using broad copay cards and start using clearer, access-based segmentation instead. Consumers find it easier to understand and accept discounts based on income, insurance status, or institutional use (like schools and emergency responders). This method still lets you charge different prices, but only in a way that fits with what people expect from an important product.

In the end, the question isn't whether Mylan should make money off of EpiPen, but whether its pricing strategy shows that it understands the responsibility that comes with selling a product that people need to live.