Slashdot Mirror
'Is Curing Patients a Sustainable Business Model?' Goldman Sachs Analysts Ask (arstechnica.com)
In an April 10 report for biotech clients, Goldman Sachs analysts noted that one-shot cures for diseases are not great for business as they're bad for longterm profits. The investment banks' report, titled "The Genome Revolution," asks clients: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" The answer may be "no," according to follow-up information provided. Slashdot reader tomhath shares the report from Ars Technica: Analyst Salveen Richter and colleagues laid it out: "The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies... While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
For a real-world example, they pointed to Gilead Sciences, which markets treatments for hepatitis C that have cure rates exceeding 90 percent. In 2015, the company's hepatitis C treatment sales peaked at $12.5 billion. But as more people were cured and there were fewer infected individuals to spread the disease, sales began to languish. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that the treatments will bring in less than $4 billion this year. [Gilead]'s rapid rise and fall of its hepatitis C franchise highlights one of the dynamics of an effective drug that permanently cures a disease, resulting in a gradual exhaustion of the prevalent pool of patients," the analysts wrote. The report noted that diseases such as common cancers -- where the "incident pool remains stable" -- are less risky for business.
For a real-world example, they pointed to Gilead Sciences, which markets treatments for hepatitis C that have cure rates exceeding 90 percent. In 2015, the company's hepatitis C treatment sales peaked at $12.5 billion. But as more people were cured and there were fewer infected individuals to spread the disease, sales began to languish. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that the treatments will bring in less than $4 billion this year. [Gilead]'s rapid rise and fall of its hepatitis C franchise highlights one of the dynamics of an effective drug that permanently cures a disease, resulting in a gradual exhaustion of the prevalent pool of patients," the analysts wrote. The report noted that diseases such as common cancers -- where the "incident pool remains stable" -- are less risky for business.
Freeloaders? So you think that we in Europe does not pay for the patents and drugs sold by US companies?
The reasons US life expectancy is lower are not much related to the health care system unless you think drug overdose, suicide, car accidents, etc. are failures of the health care system. Only about 4% of US bankruptcies are caused by medical bills -- if you read the Warren et al. papers claiming higher rates, you find they are self-rebutting. (For example, they asked for potentially multiple causes of the bankruptcies they studied, with medical expenses being one of those causes, and then they added a bunch more bankruptcies to their "medical bankruptcies" group just to make that group larger.)
Cut military spending and the government could easily afford socialised medicine services without any additional cost to taxpayers. I used to do contract work for the DoD and the amount of money that I saw utterly wasted by the US military is disgusting. They DO somehow work out ways to pay $50 for a $5 hammer.
I'll even admit that I was way overpaid for the kind of work they had me doing. My abilities were well beyond what the job needed but every time I tried to suggest a more efficient way, I was ignored.
And how much did the military waste during the lengthy occupation in Iraq? Wasn't it something ridiculous like $8,000,000,000 per day? If the US paid more attention to the country rather than constantly interfering in the affairs of other countries, there would be a lot more money for important things and the rest of the world wouldn't hate us as much.
Europeans are basically freeloaders leeching off American R&D spending.
No we are not.
According to the economist the european union spent $275 billion in medical r&d compared to $366 billion spent by the USA in 2011. You would also need to add especially Switzerland, Norway and Russia spending if you are talking about europe as a continent. I do not think the magnitude of those numbers changed considerably in the last 7 years.
Concluding: Yes we thank the USA for spending more on R&D than we do, but we are also far from being freeloaders.
Currently, every state in the U.S. has a separate insurance market, and there are 50 states. No scaling needed. Q.E.D.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
alive and cured them were made in Europe. Most of that kind of research is done in Europe because you can't get the US to pay for research that isn't profitable.
More money spent doesn't necessarily mean better outcomes when the point of that spending is to bring in profits on a short term scale. If anything most basic science is being done in Europe and the US is leaching off it that (much more valuable) science.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/