448
FDA approves cure for sickle cell disease, the first treatment to use CRISPR (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (7 children)

It's tricky because the money, time and opportunity cost gone into development, testing and the approval process are also priced into this. Plus the fact that this needs to not only break even but make some money plus the fact that this won't be relevant for a huge market I think (not sure how prevalent SCD is). So it's an outrageous price but probably not just plucked out of thin air

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This is why pharma research should be publicly funded, and the results go directly into public domain. We will save so much money and lives in the long run that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    A LOT of pharma research gets significant public funding. They then patent it and privatize the profits. Then spending millions on advertising.

    Then they try and justify pricing from the total cost of not only development, but also advertising budgets, while avoiding any mention of where the actual development funding came from in the first place.

    That's not for everything, but it's a large enough number of drugs and treatments that the entire industry is based on bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The bigger one is to decouple development from manufacturing.

    Development should be done on a bounty type system. Both countries and individual groups can put money into bounties.

    Once the bounty is claimed, then the drug is effectively free for all to produce. This lets us leverage capitalism to push prices down.

    This would reshape drug development from max money, to most needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I like this - but would companies that fail (in being second) not get credit for their work? You could imagine the second place actually having a more effective product at the end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You don't have a yes/no payout. You have a graded payout. E.g. you might have a 1 shot cure pay out the full amount, but a sustained treatment only pay a smaller %. This lets you encourage development of the most effective treatment, not the most profitable. It's currently better to make a condition chronic, and so need treatment for a lifetime, than develop a cure.

    You also don't pay out all at once. By spreading it out over sat 10 years. It means it can be adjusted if the company's claims are... less than accurate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's bullshit! The most advanced technology ever developed by mankind and the most expensive to develop is AI. And I can pay Open AI 20 bucks a month to hire what is basically a human in the 10th too percentile for 20 bucks.

    The only difference is the elasticity of the market. If I need your fucking drug and you have a patent then I will have to give you all I have so I don't die.

    The healthcare system in the US is just fucked up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •