Goldman Sachs: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

[Paratus]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...le-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-say/

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.

Another reason why the government should be involved in medicine. If a particular cure isn’t profitable for a company it will still save the government medical costs.

It also shows how dumbass the statement anti-Vaxxers make about vaccines are profit driven. Prevention and cures aren’t profitable compared to chronic treatment.

 

[Nashemon]

Sick, Sad World

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't think the pharma companies themselves are worried about cures, as that is an optimal way to upend and secure control of a disease space. It's more like the vultures of wall street who push money and profit over all else.

As far as treatments that cure and how to make a sustainable payment model for all parties, one might look at Novartis's CAR-T therapy that can actually cure people. It's priced so they only get paid if the patient is cured and it's priced at a point that is lower than the lifetime cost that treatment alone would cost.

And if someone finds a cure and decides not to market it, sure, have the government step in.

 

[Sunburn74]

Yes the pharma companies may be less interested in a cure for a disease, but none of them are walking away from the incredible cash windfall that comes from having a monopoly on a cure of a disease. And again there's big pharma and small pharma. No way a small company walks away from a cure that can turn them into the big boys.

That's not even talking about all the incentives individual researchers have to cure stuff.

The only way for a cure to be blocked is if there was some sort of widespread collusion to never let something come to market and there is pretty much no way that would ever happen.

 

[jackstar7]

The hand of the marketplace is the most just and noble!

 

[JSt0rm]

death panels! durr

 

[interchange]

There will be no shortage of incurable chronic illness for the foreseeable future.

 

[paperfist]

Does Sachs control these research/medical companies through investments?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Does Sachs control these research/medical companies through investments?

just waiting for Tai Young Medical to become a big player

/s /deusex

 

[Paratus]

There will be no shortage of incurable chronic illness for the foreseeable future.

Sad but true.

Does Sachs control these research/medical companies through investments?

I’m not sure.
Probably not directly but they can probably affect share price and market financing. Less money for business with high market exposures to cures vs chronic medicines

 

[uclaLabrat]

They don't affect the research directly, but they can probably influence seed funding or other financial aspects of very young companies, at least as far as I understand.

That said, those companies will always present an opportunity, and someone will try to exploit that. The product lifecycle for cures is probably 5-10 years before you've cured the existing patients and then you're only left with new patients as they develop the disease.

I think that's actually a good thing, it forces companies to keep innovating instead of milking existing revenue streams.