Cancer Drug SHOCKER: $13K vs $40 Price Gap

A terminal cancer patient’s family was quoted $13,000 a month for a life-saving drug — then found the exact same medication for $40, exposing a pricing gap that researchers say could save Medicare nearly a billion dollars a year.

Story Snapshot

A real-world case shows a cancer drug quoted at $13,000 monthly was available for roughly $40 through Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs pharmacy.
A peer-reviewed oncology study found potential Medicare Part D savings of $857.8 million — a 91% reduction — if just seven cancer drugs were purchased through Cost Plus Drugs.
The company’s pricing model charges the manufacturer’s cost plus a 15% markup, a small pharmacy fee, and shipping — cutting out pharmacy benefit managers entirely.
Critics note the savings evidence is based on modeled projections for a narrow set of generic drugs, not a proven system-wide solution for all cancer therapies.

A $13,000 Drug Available for $40

The story that crystallized public outrage was straightforward: a husband sought medication for his wife’s terminal cancer and was quoted between $13,000 and $15,000 per month at conventional pharmacies. After finding Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, he obtained the same drug for approximately $39.75 per month. The drug in question, imatinib — a well-established cancer treatment — is listed by Cost Plus Drugs at roughly $13.40 for a one-month supply, compared to around $2,500 at other pharmacies. ^[3]

This is not an isolated data point. Cost Plus Drugs publicly lists abiraterone acetate, the generic version of the cancer drug Zytiga, at a home-delivery price of $19.23 compared to a retail benchmark of $1,093.20. ^[8] These price gaps are not theoretical — they are posted openly on the company’s website and can be independently verified by any patient or caregiver willing to look. ^[7]

TY to Cost Plus Drugs & Mark Cuban. 👍

His wife’s terminal cancer drug was quoted at $13,000 monthly. He found it for $40 https://t.co/UN3ZtZqZIF

— Rebecca Clester (@ClesterRebecca) May 13, 2026

What the Research Actually Shows

A 2024 peer-reviewed study published in The Oncologist found that purchasing seven cancer-directed drugs through Cost Plus Drugs could generate potential Medicare Part D savings of $857.8 million, representing a 91% reduction. The same study found savings on 21 of 26 supportive care drugs examined, totaling an additional $28.7 million in potential savings. ^[1] A separate analysis presented at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference estimated that nine selected oncology drugs could be purchased at 83% to 88% less than current Medicare spending levels. ^[4]

The savings projections are significant, but they carry an important caveat: they are modeled comparisons, not confirmed Medicare purchasing outcomes. Both studies selected drugs specifically because they were already available through Cost Plus Drugs, which means the analysis does not cover the full oncology market, branded therapies, specialty injectables, or drugs without generic competition. ^[1]^[4] The evidence is real and peer-reviewed, but it applies to a defined slice of cancer medications rather than every drug a patient might need.

How the Pricing Model Works — and Why It Matters

Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company operates as a public benefit corporation. Its pricing formula is transparent and fixed: the manufacturer’s cost, plus a 15% markup, plus a pharmacy handling fee, plus a shipping charge. ^[5] By bypassing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — the largely invisible intermediaries that negotiate drug prices between manufacturers, insurers, and pharmacies — the company eliminates a layer of the supply chain that critics on both the left and the right have long identified as a key driver of inflated drug costs. ^[3]^[6]

The deeper issue this story surfaces is one that frustrates Americans across the political spectrum: a system where the same pill costs $13,000 in one channel and $40 in another is not a pricing system — it is a maze designed to extract money from sick people. Whether the solution is a disruptive direct-to-consumer model, Medicare reform, PBM regulation, or all three, the imatinib example makes it harder to argue that current drug prices reflect actual costs. What the research cannot yet answer is whether this model can scale to cover every cancer drug, every dosage form, and every patient — but it has already proven that for millions of Americans paying too much for generic medications, a better option exists right now. ^[1]^[4]^[6]