"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" Goldman Sachs analysts ask

[sinkingfeeling]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-sustainable-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-say/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

One-shot cures for diseases are not great for business—more specifically, they’re bad for longterm profits—Goldman Sachs analysts noted in an April 10 report for biotech clients, first reported by CNBC.

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.


More at link on how the creepiest amongst us think.

[marble falls]

1. Talk about cold and callous.

[shraby]

2. I've suspected that was the game plan for years. Curing a disease cuts off the revenue.

Treating ad infinitum is very profitable indeed.

[Girard442]

3. If that kind of thinking were carried to the max...

...the drug companies would be churning out tons products that it would be nearly impossibe to stop taking. But they wouldn't do that, right?

[ismnotwasm]

4. Utilitarianism at its worst

Like this study by Phillip Morris back in the day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/18/news/tobacco-giants-analysis-says-premature-deaths-cut-costs-in-pensions-and.html

[oberliner]

5. It's definitely not

Much better to provide a medication that they have to take for the rest of their lives.

[fleur-de-lisa]

6. No worries. They'll just charge $500,000 for one-shot cures.

Those of us who cannot afford it can just fuck off and die.

[FakeNoose]

7. When extremely wealthy people get cancer

...they go to Germany and get cured.

Just sayin'

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

15. Germany can cure all cancers?

Huh. Wonder why I never heard of that before.

[AJT]

8. ain't free market capitalism grand.....

[Farmer-Rick]

12. Yup, capitalism at it's finest...err worst

In a way, all doctors and pharmaceutical corporations are abject failures because they have yet to cure death.

The whole purpose of seeing doctors and taking medicine is to put off dying for a little while longer. But in the end we all die and doctors and pharmaceutical corporations are total failures. Just think how much money they could get from us if they kept us alive forever.

[Cal Carpenter]

9. Perfectly logical in a capitalist system

[c-rational]

10. Prevention is the best answer...better than a one shot cure. I recommend the movie "What The

Health" on Netflicks.

[Hoyt]

11. I think that depends on how much the "one shot cure" costs and whether people can afford it,

whether paying out-of-pocket, through an insurance company, or through single payer if we ever get there.

I guarantee a "one shot cure" for diabetes or cancer would be worth trillions. Not sure that will ever be accomplished, but the cure would be worth a ton, especially in terms of lives saved and savings in future health care expenditures.

[exboyfil]

13. Already a great example

The cure for blindness. $850K.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/spark-therapeutics-luxturna-gene-therapy-will-cost-about-850000.html

That is the reason why we need a rigorous public sector drug research program.

[unblock]

14. The *analysis* isn't the problem.

It is what it is given the system we have. Really, this is just explaining the situation.

The problem lies in the ethical and policy conclusions. Do we alter our system to encourage long-term cures? Or do we deem it acceptable for health businesses to seek less-effective but more profitable treatments?

It's what we do with this sort of analysis that matters.

[Binkie The Clown]

16. This is why the free market should NOT be trusted with health care. nt