Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel on Monday pushed back on criticism of the company's plans to raise the price of its mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines by 400 percent, arguing that the billions of dollars in federal funding the company received played little role in the vaccine's development.
Speaking at the Wall Street Journal Health Forum, Bancel suggested that the vaccine's development is thanks to private investors and that the federal funding merely hastened development that would have occurred regardless.
[...]
While the government most recently paid $26 per dose of Moderna's updated booster, the company is planning to raise the price of its shots to $110 to $130 per dose.
Related:
"Pure and Deadly Greed": Lawmakers Slam Pfizer's 400% Price Hike on COVID Shots
« Threat Actors are Using Advanced Malware to Backdoor Business-grade Routers | Feds Open New Tesla Probe After Two Model Y Steering Wheels Come Off »
Related Stories
Senators Warren and Welch urged Pfizer to back down from "unseemly profiteering":
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator-elect Peter Welch (D-Vt.) sent a scathing letter to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla this week over the company's plan to increase the price of its COVID-19 vaccines by 400 percent next year when it enters the commercial market.
"We urge you to back off from your proposed price increases and ensure COVID-19 vaccines are reasonably priced and accessible to people across the United States," they wrote, while also requesting information about the company's revenue and profits.
In October, Pfizer revealed plans to sell its COVID-19 vaccine from somewhere between $110 and $130 next year. Most recently, the US government paid only about $30 per dose.
The planned price hike is higher than the $50 price point that some financial analysts had expected Pfizer would set upon entry to the commercial market. It's a whopping 10,000 percent markup from the vaccine's estimated cost of manufacturing.
[...] In a news event last month, Bourla drew criticism for saying that the company's COVID-19 vaccine would remain "free to all Americans" despite the price hike, because health insurance companies would cover the vaccination, leading to no out-of-pocket costs. However, such cost increases to health care lead to increasing insurance premiums, which get taken out of workers' paychecks. Moreover, Bourla didn't address the cost for uninsured people, who currently have free access to the vaccines.
In congressional testimony Wednesday, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel unabashedly defended the company's plans to raise the US list price of its COVID-19 vaccines by more than 400 percent—despite creating the vaccine in partnership with the National Institutes of Health, receiving $1.7 billion in federal grant money for clinical development, and making roughly $36 billion from worldwide sales.
Bancel appeared this morning before the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long railed at the pharmaceutical price gouging in the US and pushed for policy reforms. After thanking Bancel for agreeing to testify, Sanders didn't pull any punches. He accused Moderna of "profiteering" and sharing in the "unprecedented level of corporate greed" seen in the pharmaceutical industry generally.
[...]
Early doses were priced between $15 to $16, while the government paid a little over $26 for the updated booster shots. When federal supplies run out later this year and the vaccines move to the commercial market, Moderna will set the list price of its vaccine at $130."This vaccine would not exist without NIH's partnership and expertise, and the substantial investment of the taxpayers of this country," Sanders summarized. "And here is the thank you that the taxpayers of this country received from Moderna for that huge investment: They are thanking the taxpayers of the United States by proposing to quadruple the price of the COVID vaccine."
(Score: 5, Touché) by srobert on Friday March 10, @04:44PM (3 children)
If the billions from government had little to do with the development of the vaccines, then what was done with the public funds? Did they blow it on hookers and blackjack?
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 10, @05:35PM (1 child)
Don't you know how Oligarchies work?
Those private investors are the government.
And, yes, they do lots of hookers and blow, but you can't prove that.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday March 10, @05:56PM
Those that could, commit suicide, in prison, with accidental camera malfunctions, and no witnesses. Okay, the Epstein conspiracy theories abound, but it was definitely suspicious.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11, @01:18PM
Broadband Industry: Hey, look at this! I convinced Congress to give me millions of dollars to "invest" in expanding network access! We're going to expand alright, expand our pocketbooks!
Pharmaceutical Industry: Millions? Hold my beer . . .
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Barenflimski on Friday March 10, @05:21PM (3 children)
Are they really trying to argue that because they put it under a different column in the books, that it wasn't helpful?
I do believe they would have tried to make a vaccine as fast as possible regardless of funding, but I mean, come on. Even if there is a little bit of truth to what they are saying, no reasonable person will believe the public funding had *NOTHING* to do with this effort.
What is obviously clear is that even more so in the future, these companies are going to hold keys to letting folks live longer whether its vaccines, cancer cures or whatever. They have made it clear that they will squeeze from you every last dollar you have until you die, if you want it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 10, @05:39PM
I believe this is a basis for a legal case of ownership, which they may take all the way to our Supreme Court, as quickly as possible, to get the ruling they want.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Friday March 10, @05:49PM (1 child)
If the billions in public funds didn't do anything useful for the vaccine, naturally they'll be returning the un-needed funds, right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, @06:03PM
No, you see the funds paid for the trucks and the fabrication unit, raw materials and the secretarial staff, the lab technicians, the scientists, the sales team, distribution and legal support. But in no way shape or form do they own anything. Back to work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday March 10, @05:32PM (14 children)
Give us back our billion$, with interest.
Fact is, that money not only helped them make the vaccine, it funded a ton of research into mRNA vaccines in general. Which in the near future is going to make them a boatload of cash.
I just passed a drug test. My dealer has some explaining to do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 10, @05:46PM (13 children)
Take the billions, keep the billions, we can't tell what it funded or didn't fund, so: open source ALL the research, methods, results, production techniques, etc.
Transparency is always the answer.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedGreen on Friday March 10, @07:30PM
"Take the billions, keep the billions, we can't tell what it funded or didn't fund, so: open source ALL the research, methods, results, production techniques, etc.
Transparency is always the answer."
Indeed if public money is taken then the public gets to benefit. And that includes the no claiming R&D for an expense that come straight off the profit line for them either. The public pays for that by forgoing the taxes on that money that should be paid, if fact all them expenses go, then they have paid for their ownership with no subsidy from the public and truly own everything they have produced. Enough of the corporate parasite welfare system we have.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, @09:21PM
Not to the psychopath millionaire (is there another kind?)
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by ChrisMaple on Saturday March 11, @02:51AM (10 children)
Do you think we should have tried transparency in Normandy in 1944?
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 11, @04:08AM (9 children)
More transparency about the enemy forces would have certainly helped either side...
Are you comparing the pharmaceutical companies to the WWII Germans here?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12, @01:19AM (8 children)
It certainly would have exposed theater like Operation Himmler [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 12, @03:16AM (7 children)
Full transparency about World War I would have collapsed civilian support for the war on both sides much more quickly, potentially averting WWII altogether.
Televisation of Vietnam effectively collapsed the US draft for the duration of my life so far.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday March 12, @08:59AM (6 children)
But would it have led to a fair and acceptable outcome? Noting your sig, would full transparency result in a free Ukraine? Do you think Putin would simply say 'Ah, I have been found out, I had better withdraw completely and never do anything like this again'?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 12, @12:36PM
I think a significant amount of domestic tolerance for Putin is based on a lack of transparency. Never knowing who might be helping you or someone you love out of a high window, for a start.
As for fair? No such thing.
A tremendous amount of social progress came out of WWI, if it never happened we all probably would be in a "worse place" today, but if future humans has returned to 1905 and installed a Starlink+ like sat-com system and handed out solar powered smartphones with global video sharing capabilities to everyone... I think we could have progressed in the direction of fair and happy more quickly and with less tragedy along the way.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12, @03:20PM (4 children)
Putin might be too busy to start wars in Ukraine in the first place. He'd be explaining where hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets went.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 12, @10:09PM (3 children)
Yeah but that's *regulation,* and regulation is *bad,* right Hallow?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13, @05:00AM (2 children)
Transparency != regulation. A key corruption factor in democracies is when the voters don't know that regulation isn't being enforced. For example, there's a big difference between suspecting that Putin steals money from Russia and knowing that there's X amount of his money (where X is a few orders of magnitude more than a Russian president could legally earn) in a Cyprus bank account.
No. Just because today is way over regulated doesn't mean that we'd be better off abandoning all regulation instead. It could come to the point where that's true, but it isn't there yet.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 13, @07:14AM (1 child)
> No. Just because today is way over regulated doesn't mean that we'd be better off abandoning all regulation instead. It could come to the point where that's true, but it isn't there yet.
Who are you and what have you done with the real Hallow? ...keep doing it, whatever it is.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13, @07:15AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday March 10, @05:42PM (2 children)
Oh yeah? Give them back then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, @06:08PM (1 child)
No don't you see? When government invests it loses everything. When companies invest they get their money back with profits. Because this was a government investment ergo it loses everything.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12, @02:04AM
I get that there was a certain amount of sarcasm in this post, but that's a reality, especially in the US. Investments are often just theater or corrupt transfers of public funds. Here, the US had to appear to do something about covid and so it "invested".
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DadaDoofy on Friday March 10, @06:20PM (1 child)
If they have to raise the price 400% to "meet their numbers" as was described on a recent NPR broadcast, does that mean they anticipate just 25% of last year's customers opting for another jab this year?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by VLM on Saturday March 11, @03:40PM
covid.cdc.gov is a disinfo source, but its reporting 16.3%
usafacts.org, another disinfo souce, reports around 30%
To one sig fig, yeah, "about one fifth" sounds about right.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday March 10, @06:48PM (2 children)
Another pharma bro felt it necessary to make this laughable assertion. Weak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, @07:10PM
Bro, where would we be without Randian ubermenches lifting up society from the bootstraps - oh, except the part you reside in. Every man for himself fuckers!
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday March 10, @10:15PM
It's not totallly laughable. One of the companies did refuse to sign onto the program, and then came up with the first "approved" vaccine, because it wasn't held back by paperwork. And I forget the name, but it wasn't Moderna. Still, it's quite possible that Moderna had already committed funding before the government gave them any money.
But if they want to make this claim, they should give back the money.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Friday March 10, @07:18PM (6 children)
To be clear, we the taxpayers
The CEO that managed to pull off that hat trick is worth every penny of his $24.8 million dollars plus stock compensation and bonus awards. If there was a Nobel prize for capitalism, He'd deserve it. Well done sir, Well done.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday March 10, @07:42PM (3 children)
The big one in that four is the last one. Billions of dollars selling COVID jabs is going to be small beans compared to when they get that technology working for cancer.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Saturday March 11, @02:58AM (2 children)
Nixon declared the War on Cancer in the 1970s. Cancer has turned out to be very difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if the mRNA vaccine patents have expired by the time there's a general cure.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Saturday March 11, @10:25AM (1 child)
There will never be a general cure. If we can treat most cancers occurring today successfully, there will be new secondary cancers escaping those treatments. It is a permanent arms race.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12, @03:18PM
With some rare exceptions, cancers don't evolve because they don't survive the death of the host body. The tricks we have now for hitting cancers will probably continue to work a million years from now, should a human-like organism still be around. And similarly, there won't be evolutionary pressure for humans to develop cancers resistant to these treatment techniques.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Saturday March 11, @03:43PM (1 child)
Don't forget that they're not just legally shielded from mere side effects.
The effectiveness numbers also don't matter when a product is considered a form of political/religious communion, at least by one side.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Sunday March 12, @01:50AM
What you should have learned from your bitter experiences is that debate tactics are no substitute for making a solid case.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩