Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ogpokemontrainer t1_ixusfq7 wrote

Approved at $3.5 million a dose gif

117

fireisveryfun t1_ixvl45v wrote

It's a single dose, manufactured in incredibly small amounts - a few dozen a year. From what I've gathered it looks like the price is intended to recoup research costs. That said, the burden to pay really should be covered or at the very least VERY heavily subsidized by the government.

65

ComradeBlyat308 t1_ixvoxvn wrote

Given the subsidies these places get, wouldn't be surprised if it already WAS paid for by the government, and the research costs they're trying to recoup were ones they never paid in the first place.

34

NoDownsideToOutside t1_ixw1ihm wrote

People fail to realize the grants these labs are given. These companies are definitely double dipping. I’m not saying stuff like this isn’t hard to produce, but I doubt $3.5 mil/dose worth of labor, and research was done, even without grants/subsidies/tax breaks the company received.

Also a lot of these things are developed and then the company buys the patents solely for distribution profits.

21

Terrorzwergi t1_ixwnjd4 wrote

> I work doing safety testing for drugs just like this. Setting aside all the money it takes to develop one of these viral gene therapy drugs, the cost to manufacture a single dose on a lot of them is somewhere around 50-90,000 dollars. The viruses need to be grown, then emptied of their regular genetic material, have the new, specially designed genetics put in, then replicated up to a level that can be infused into a person. Every single one of those steps requires highly skilled people to ensure it happens correctly. Growth of viruses need to happen in cell tissue culture, which also costs a lot for all the materials to do correctly, then all the supplies needed to purify out the virus from all the other crud in manufacturing. Then, once the product is made, it still has to be quality tested, to ensure things like dosage is correct, and that there isn’t anything left that’s contaminating. And all this doesn’t even count the years and years of research and development that goes into getting a virus with the correct components to be effective at treatment but otherwise non damaging to a patient. Drug product patents have to be filed pretty much as soon as a compound is discovered, so well before clinical trials even begin. They’re often only good for 20-25 years. So, if you figure 7-10 years of base research and development, another 3-5 years of clinical trials, getting FDA approval, etc, on average a company only has 3-5 years to make back ALL the money they put into a new drug, plus some profit to keep the doors open, lights on and investors interested in funding the next project.

u/TheBearWillBeFine

4

velifer t1_ixw66p5 wrote

>It's a single dose,

That current evidence is showing will likely need to be re-administered every five years. That's not in their reports to the shareholders.

​

>manufactured in incredibly small amounts

They will make every single dose they can sell. This is not a supply issue. This is a patent and greed issue.

​

>From what I've gathered it looks like the price is intended to recoup research costs.

The price is set to maximize what an insurance company will pay. It's set a just slightly less than the price of clotting factors the patient will need if they don't use this therapy.

​

>That said, the burden to pay really should be covered or at the very least VERY heavily subsidized by the government.

The government already paid for it, much of the work was done with public dollars and grants.

8

demonmariner t1_ixv22ml wrote

Not quite so uplifting.

13

Sariel007 OP t1_ixv5kr0 wrote

One dose cure instead of "...patients will undergo regular infusions of their missing clotting factor. Though effective at stopping spontaneous bleeding, these infusions are not a cure and in the most severe cases, people may need to get them every two to three days—a costly and time-consuming measure. "

26

AinsiSera t1_ixvnosp wrote

I read elsewhere that those treatments easily add up to $100k/month, so honestly $3.5 mil is pretty cost effective competitively.

16

RO489 t1_ixvt06y wrote

Depending if your insurance/ employer agree. Since insurance is mostly tied to employment in the US, they aren't firing the math of a lifetime cost. I'd imagine single payer would be a no brainer, but if you are an employer, it'll increase everyone's cost.

Another argument in favor of single payer.

5

scarlet_sage t1_ixvnm9y wrote

It did not appear to be a cure, though it doesn't explain why.

>It also appeared to lower the rate of bleeding problems by 54% in one trial, and it reduced the need for regular infusions of clotting factors....

>it should reduce the frequency of expensive transfusions; they also say that the drug’s effectiveness is expected to last for several years at least.

3

TheLyz t1_ixw5vw4 wrote

The clotting factors they get infused with aren't much cheaper. One bleeding incident could result in needing $250,000 (probably more now, this was 10 years ago) of Factor-7 to stop it. It isn't cheap to be a hemophiliac.

5