Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the enough-to-make-you-sick dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:21PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:21PM (#667347)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @07:13PM (#667366)

    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.