> "Why would we? Pricing shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a rational decision based on merits and values," he said. "Hundreds of millions of investor money has gone into the company, and if there is no return for those investments, there will be no new drugs because nobody's going to do that in the future, right?"
As terrible as it sounds, this logic seems sound to me. If we think having this type of drug is worth the > $100MM it took to develop, then health systems should either fund the $100MM research, or they should let private companies do it and pay them fairly for their work. $1MM for something so expensive to develop with so few possible users doesn't seem crazy to me.
If the $100MM is in fact not worth it, then, well, you get the situation we have now.
I'm sure a lot of people will read this article and think the owners/funders of the drugs are the bad guys. But nobody can be expected to work for free.
Yeah, people just look at the price and think that's terrible, but it's a business not a charity. It's up to the government to step up if people really deem this to be a problem worth solving. With their tax dollars. I bet a lot of critics would go quiet at the point they actually have to pony up.
>>> Hundreds of millions of investor money has gone into the company, and if there is no return for those investments,
Considering that there are patients who needs it, you can divide the price by 10, this way you make sure everybody will pay and the only sacrifice you make is your ROI to be on a 10x longer period.
The problem with investors is that they want tons of benefits and in a very short time.
They could as well sell the IP if they don't use it anymore.
I understand that this is business, but here I see at as "if we fail, then everybody will fail".
As terrible as it sounds, this logic seems sound to me. If we think having this type of drug is worth the > $100MM it took to develop, then health systems should either fund the $100MM research, or they should let private companies do it and pay them fairly for their work. $1MM for something so expensive to develop with so few possible users doesn't seem crazy to me.
If the $100MM is in fact not worth it, then, well, you get the situation we have now.
I'm sure a lot of people will read this article and think the owners/funders of the drugs are the bad guys. But nobody can be expected to work for free.