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 investment banks’ report, titled “The Genome Revolution,” asks clients the touchy question: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The answer may be “no,” according to follow-up information provided.
[...] 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.
[...] Ars reached out to Goldman Sachs, which confirmed the content of the report but declined to comment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @11:18AM (1 child)
If there is no germline editing, then there will be a steady stream of people getting mutations that need to be fixed. However the mutations may be distinct enough to make mass production not feasible (aka the gene therapy has to be "personalized").
The solution is to make a programmable gene therapy that can be quickly tailored to work for any desired changes. Research will be needed the understand each disease and the necessary edits. Fund universities and nonprofits to do the research, and make it impossible to patent each gene therapy. Maybe just the underlying delivery system for all of the therapies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @05:20PM
Yes, but presumably the cost of doing this kind of procedure will continue to drop over time, albeit more slowly if it's individual treatments rather than over a larger pool of individuals getting the same exact treatment.
This is just one more example of why it's generally better to have a single payer system covering at least all the typical diseases and disorders that people get. Now, if we want to let people pay for other things that are more expensive and have less impact on people's welfare, that's a different matter.