SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:19PM (4 children)
These "analysts" have succombed to the kind of fallacious economic thinking that was dismantled over 150 years ago.
Of course it is NOT more profitable to squeeze productivity from sick people; it would make far more sense to offer sick people a cure, and then have them pay for that cure out of their healthy productivity—the cure would be an investment, and could indeed be organized as such, by payment via a loan.
What derails this sensible conclusion is a decidedly NON-free-market wart on society: The Welfare State, which forces a dwindling population of healthy, productive people to pay for the ongoing maintenance of unhealthy, unproductive people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:21PM (1 child)
You're an idiot if you actually believe that.
It is far more profitable to keep people on the line for an extremely expensive drug for their entire life - a drug that keeps them "healthy" enough to work productively and afford medical insurance that pays most of the costs. Insulin is an excellent example of this. Why cure diabetes when you can charge people their entire lives for the ability to manually manage their sugar levels.
The only way that won't be true is if the 1-shot cure conveniently costs more than a lifetime (say 25 years) supply of the expensive drug. Something that likely won't be covered by any medical insurance due to the enormous up front cost with the chances of of relapses or failure to actually cure.
So yeah, it will most definitely hit their bottom line if they actually provided the cure at reasonably affordable prices. (hint: Even the currently lifetime treatment options aren't "reasonable" to be honest. The only way they're even feasible is due to extensive, expensive, insurance plans for the wealthy and welfare benefits for the rest of us.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @07:13PM
People don't mind working as much as they mind being sick.
Sick people would pay big bucks to be cured, even if that meant spending the rest of their lives making monthly payments to pay for that cure.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Monday April 16 2018, @01:46AM (1 child)
Ummm. No.
THESE 'analysts' are looking at the pharma industry, which most certainly does NOT profit from increased productivity from healthy people.
It profits from maximising the amount of money it can extra from the medical/instruance industry, which itself profits from how terrified people are of the huge cost of treatements.
They are in a race to the top - just about everyone in the US medical/healthcare system profits more as the cost of treatement increases, so they all support increased costs.
The only question is, where does the balloon eventually pop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16 2018, @10:14AM
The comment to which you replied would be a decent response to your comment; you haven't made a point.