Replicel

[WillhasWill]

Originally Posted by gmonasco

IReplicel's product is not a "drug"; it's a treatment that requires the replication of hair cells, a process that is neither quick nor inexpensive.

Ah yes, of course. The biopsy and hair replication will justify higher prices. Still, compared to a hair transplant no where near as many man hours are needed.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by WillhasWill

Still, compared to a hair transplant no where near as many man hours are needed.

Even if that were true, is it really relevant to the cost? After all, HT doctors typically charge based on the number of grafts implanted, not on the elapsed time of the surgical process.

[NotBelievingIt]

Originally Posted by Davey Jones

Anybody making even half way decent money should be able to save $20,000 in five years. Depends what you want more: cappuccinos everyday or hair?

Not everyone has zippo debt and little expenses.

Me? It would take me one year to save that much money but I am an exception to the rule in many ways and no, I do not make over $100k/year.

Of course, saving it for a year would be more like "putting back what I took out"

[paulsreef]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

20'000$ is a lot of money.

Where I live the average salary is about 800$ a month. Most of that goes to living expenses and food. So maybe people can save 1000$ a year max.

There should be a hair tax. Tax those that have full heads of hair and divide the monies among those that have less, so we could pay for the treatments. If there are no treatments, then we could at least take the money and have a good time to forget about our bad hair days.

[gmonasco]

Scorpion is a troll. Do not feed the trolls.

[WillhasWill]

Originally Posted by paulsreef

There should be a hair tax. Tax those that have full heads of hair and divide the monies among those that have less, so we could pay for the treatments. If there are no treatments, then we could at least take the money and have a good time to forget about our bad hair days.

And why stop there:

• Fat tax: Tax fat people to pay for food for the skinny people.
• Skinny tax: Tax skinny people to pay for the fat people's weight watchers and/or gastric bands.

Wait lets stop there don't give the conservatives in the UK any ideas!

[ccmethinning]

Many hair transplant surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, cosmetic dentists, etc, offer financing programs through big banks for elective surgeries. I don't see why RepliCel's procedure would be any different.

[WillhasWill]

Originally Posted by gmonasco

Even if that were true, is it really relevant to the cost? After all, HT doctors typically charge based on the number of grafts implanted, not on the elapsed time of the surgical process.

I'd imagine it's relative to the cost and affects the cost. They are not charging on time per say but the price for grafts is in some way made up of time when the price was first decided.

Anyway, the point is a treatment like Replicel I think could be pretty economical.

[lpenergy]

Let's see if it works for first. Otherwise there won't be anything to pay for. Economics states that profit is maximized through price discrimination, in other words you charge people that have more money higher fees compared to those that have less. This is often done today. Take cars for instance.

Car makers have the "base" model that is relatively cheaper. Once you add all the goodies, bigger engine, nicer seats, stereo, etc, the price dramatically jumps. Their percentage profit is higher as well usually on the higher-end version. Could it be possible that a company like Replicel would have a starter treatment vs. a treatment including all the bells and whistles for a higher fee? Higher fee for a higher density, more attention and natural hairline, multiple treatments, longer warranty against hair falling out, maybe supplemental fue, and additional hair evaluations? The base treatment might be just an injection. Who knows? The key will be how successful Repicel (insert name of hair solution provider) is.

[WillhasWill]

Originally Posted by lpenergy

Let's see if it works for first. Otherwise there won't be anything to pay for. Economics states that profit is maximized through price discrimination, in other words you charge people that have more money higher fees compared to those that have less. This is often done today. Take cars for instance.

Car makers have the "base" model that is relatively cheaper. Once you add all the goodies, bigger engine, nicer seats, stereo, etc, the price dramatically jumps. Their percentage profit is higher as well usually on the higher-end version. Could it be possible that a company like Replicel would have a starter treatment vs. a treatment including all the bells and whistles for a higher fee? Higher fee for a higher density, more attention and natural hairline, multiple treatments, longer warranty against hair falling out, maybe supplemental fue, and additional hair evaluations? The base treatment might be just an injection. Who knows? The key will be how successful Repicel (insert name of hair solution provider) is.

I can see it now, how many hairs would you like today sir? You get larger discounts for larger quantities.

I hope that price discrimination doesn't get too popular in the medical world. Otherwise cancer treatments in the future will have a sliding price scale depending on how long you can afford to live.

Good point about density though. If Replicel works and they can play around with density then there may be different prices for this.