I barely want to live another day of life at the age of 36 :/
Take, for instance, Harvoni -- a drug introduced in late 2014 which cures Hepatitis C following a single course of treatment. It has done something like $100B in revenue for Gilead Biosciences, and, minimally, earned them $7-10B in profit. (Possibly much more than that.) Its pricing was scandalous, but that's not the issue here; the point is that it was unequivocally one of the most profitable drug launches in history.
Sure, the eradication of Hep C might make it "unsustainable" -- but it's not as though there's a lack of other diseases or maladies to contend with. Take the profits and plant new seeds, buy new technologies, develop new drugs. Besides, the research and development of new drugs has never been a stable business model, and never truly sustainable off one discovery, on account of patent expiry terms, generic competition, etc.
So if the pricing hadn't been "scandalous" by your definition, would it still have been profitable? You do realize that the profits are there because of the pricing, right?
Their pricing was considered high enough that it led to a Senate investigation and quite a lot of litigation. (Which likely dug into their profits.)
> https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/company-put-profi...
They could have priced it lower and still have turned a healthy profit. Still, they played the rules of the game as those rules were set, which a Goldman Sachs analyst, at least, ought to appreciate. There's nothing inherently unprofitable about cures, and the nature of the drug development business is inherently unsustainable.
I do agree with your point that curing diseases is profitable.
Most people in the industry could name several examples of cures that are highly profitable.
Not to mention patented drugs are inherently an “unsustainable business” due to the eventual introduction of generics/biosimilars.
Depending on your development pathway, you’d be lucky to get 6-8 years to turn a profit.
But not here. Someone's gotta make mad bank off of every aspect of this shit here.
It's a race to a medium. the problem is the medium is lower than rich people want, and the masses of poorer people who benefit from being lifted above amputation and a wooden leg don't appear in the cashflow as benefactors.
Getting used to a happy medium being lower than many people are used to, is hard.
“Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.”
“Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe.”
“Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) … Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”
e.g. Curing blind children is profitable, since there's so many genetic reasons a child would be blind that you can keep introducing new cures reapplying the same technology.
It's a long term investment.
It’s not sustainable for businesses who rely on sickness.
Grow up Goldman.
Since we've mostly run out of small molecule drugs, the (vast?) majority of drugs are developed outside the pharmaceutical industry by biotechs funded by VCs and public investors. It's a well understood pipeline now that takes IP from university tech transfer to VC biotech to pre-revenue* IPO with the final exit being an acquisition by a pharmaceutical company, which comes in with the manufacturing infrastructure to take the drug from phase III trials or approval to the mass market. Once a drug is approved (or the phase III is very promising like Sofosbuvir), pharmaceutical companies trip over each other trying to buy the IP. The industry has offloaded most of the scientific risk to VCs and the public while sharing the rewards with those investors.
As long as the number of pharmaceutical companies doesn't drop to oligopoly/cartel levels and capture the regulators completely, the incentives are strong for one pharmaceutical company to buy a cure and take it to market to undercut a competitor's treatment. Even if an oligopoly develops, since there's no "product market fit" risk and zero scientific risk once a drug is approved, financing the purchase is trivial and starting a new pharmaceutical company to compete with the oligopoly is relatively easy. The manufacturing bit is no joke but the amount of money involved even with a single drug makes starting up a new pharmaceutical competitor totally worth it, since the manufacturing and quality control is a well understood engineering problem.
On top of that, it's practically impossible for every pharmaceutical company to have a drug that treats the same thing without a ton of consolidation in the market. Drug approvals often use active-comparators and standard of care controls that raise the bar for each new drug on the market that treats the same thing. A cure on the other hand is essentially just competing against a single golden standard (there are many exceptions but it's a good rule of thumb).
Another factor is pricing. Treatments are generally priced based on how they impact quality of life because that decides how much insurers are willing to pay, especially the big state healthcare providers that have to do hard cost benefit calculations. If a treatment is making bank, the ceiling for what you can charge for a cure is a significant fraction of the lifetime cost of the treatment, and not just based on the QOL impact. It creates a strong incentive for both investors and insurers to get the cure to market.
* If you think unprofitable tech IPOs are bad, most biotechs that IPO do so with zero revenue, let alone profit. Usually to fund clinical trials.
What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech company it is, but those cured patients are far more likely to go on living longer, healthier lives, and in turn contribute additional value to society - which will impact others in ways that may also create additional value. That doesn't even get into the jobs and value created through the R&D process, testing, manufacturing, logistics of delivery, ongoing monitoring, etc. As long as the value created is more than the cost of the treatment, then it's a net-gain for the economy even if it's a net loss for that singular business.
If all you're judging is the first-order impacts on a single business, you're missing the forest for the trees.
In reality though, I was not-so-subtly trying to suggest that if something is necessary for the public good (curing diseases) but a bad business model, then perhaps Capitalism itself is the wrong vehicle for that segment of industry and a different option - be it an incentive structure, government-owned pharmaceutical research, or managed economy - is needed.
Society fundamentally needs things that are simply bad business - sheltering everyone (lowers long-term housing revenue), feeding everyone (lowers long-term food revenue), healing everyone (lowers long-term healthcare revenue), educating everyone (lowers the value of degrees/credentials). If our economic model prohibits or discourages achieving optimal resource usage and human outcomes, then it's our obligation to explore and identify alternatives that may improve those outcomes respectively.
I believe the great innovation of capitalism is markets, and the next era of economic and social will be driven by mixed capital/social good markets.
For example, what if you tied the tax rate for an industry to a combination of broad social goods (say, homelessness) and industry-specific goods (say the incidence rate of cancer for cancer drug companies), such that if we’re in a the middle of a homelessness crisis and many people have cancer, the tax rate might be 50%, vs if there is virtually no homelessness and we’ve cured cancer, maybe it’s 10%. Obviously there are other market approaches but eventually they would be converted to capital markets, so something like the above makes sense to me as a start.
However, I prefer that the value capture is by the public rather than a private corporation.
That is what we need to address.
They ask it "is this good business" not just because they care about the answer itself but because they want to start a debate on how society should promote the invention of cures.
Like I think most people in most industries are passionate people that really want to do good, but they do need to eat too.
Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Uber has almost a 200B market cap for offering private transit. There is a working business model for transit.
The problem is our society is set up to give a lot of power and influence to businesses that are precisely interested in their own tree and not interested in the forest at all.
The question is: If a capitalist (or agent in a capitalist system) has a choice between a) investing to produce/producing a cure, or b) investing to produce/producing a more-or-less working symptomatic relief, how many agents/capitalists (in decision-making positions) go for choice B, which essentially turns them into legal drug pushers with a money-printing license?
In a strict sense, curing a single disease isn't a long term "sustainable business", because you'll eventually push the population of affected patients below a threshold of profitability. The premise of a major pharma company is that they keep finding other treatments.
2018: 448 points, 370 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16827248
2021: 104 points, 100 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27184116
moelf•1h ago