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, @05:15PM (3 children)
Not just that, but in some parts of the world the traditional business model for healing people is that you pay when you feel well and stop paying until the medical provider has resolved the ailment. Which in many ways makes a lot more sense as there's less conflict of interest.
Also, in most parts of the world, they don't focus on profit in the first place as it's pretty disgusting to draw all those lines about life based only on the bottom line.
There is going to be a point where it's just too expensive to provide further treatments, but that kind of thing should be considered carefully. Any such evaluations should be based more on the quality and quantity of life that the patient would have later on. Trying to treat brain cancer in a 90 year old is probably not worthwhile, but not because the company doing the procedure can't get paid, but because it offers relatively little quality of life after the procedure.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 15 2018, @08:42PM (2 children)
Yes, and the witch doctors and shamans that practice there know that most people will heal themselves if left alone, (because that's what all animals do), and the rest can be blamed on evil spirits. So the cures and treatments don't actually have to work at all.
This is why we have nephropathy and homeopathy and assorted other quack treatments.
But hey, way to champion a rational medical system!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16 2018, @01:46PM
Ah, nice to see some "rational" bigotry going on here.
The point is that they have a system where the money is aligned with the best interests of the patients to a much larger degree than in the US.
Also, despite your arrogant chortles, the medical system in Europe and the US at the same time that those "witch doctors" were the main source of medicine was hardly any better. They'd have people taking all sorts of weird treatments with no particular evidence of efficacy, but they'd be making money directly off the cures that ranged from questionable to fraudulent to downright dangerous.
Homeopathy is something that people like you like to trot out because it's an easy target for pot shots, the more typical treatments for things involve herbal remedies which remain the main source of pharmaceuticals in the current era. We've just recently gotten to the point where we can do things that don't require a plant to do it first. And yet, you make it sound like we're centuries further ahead of those practices than we are. Western medical science isn't as advanced as people like you would have us believe. We're still behaving like bacteria cause illness when there's scant evidence to support that version for most diseases. It's superstition that kills a lot of people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17 2018, @09:59AM
Yeah but it's funny how lots of companies interview those shamans and witch doctors to learn what herbs they use in order to find more stuff to patent.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mother-natures-medicine-c/ [scientificamerican.com]
They often need to know more than just what herb:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/medicines-in-nature/ [nationalgeographic.com]
There's a very good argument for having standardized pills so you know exactly how much of the stuff you're taking and also for figuring out side effects, doses and interactions. But one should also realize that lots of those cures and treatments we have come from traditional knowledge.
Lastly:
In very many cases "modern medicine" doctors do a similar thing - they give patients antibiotics or placebos for milder cases of flu. And the patients heal themselves.
Even for stuff like surgery and bone setting it's the body that has to do the final job of putting the pieces together. It doesn't always work (e.g. idiot patient smokes after reattachment surgery, diabetes etc).