Replies to post #205857 on Biotech Values

[Biowatch]

Hillary can't stomp on rising drug costs now.

Rising health care costs are a big problem that society can ill-afford. Yes, saving lives goes along with high-priced drugs, but cheaper preventative medicine, screening, and early health care intervention saves lives too, often at a lower overall cost. Kind of depends on how you value the client when looking for maximum profits/benefit. Or how you define benefit...

Miracle drugs are rare. I grind my teeth when people argue that paying the cost of a four-year-college degree (not their words) is worth spending on a cancer drug that might buy you an extra two or three months "so you could live long enough to attend your [son/nephew's] high school graduation." "So that they'll remember you..." Which would they remember more? High school graduation, or a cheap ticket to college?

But I digress...[rant]

P.S.,

How fast will they get rid of Obamocare, and with what consequences?

[DewDiligence]

Is “FDA reform” bullish for drug/biotech companies?

There has been a lot of ink in the past few days asserting that Republicans want to see less FDA regulation and that this will lead to a lower bar for FDA approvals and is therefore bullish for drug/biotech companies.

The above reasoning is backward, IMO.

A lower bar for FDA approvals would actually be bearish for non-scam drug/biotech companies by weakening their economic moat. Higher-quality drug/biotech companies are the ones who have the talent and financial resources to conduct robust clinical trials, which are generally (SRPT aside) what is required for FDA approval. The last thing these companies want is a “loose” FDA that approves products willy-nilly and thereby erodes the companies’ competitive advantage.

Too low a bar 4FDA approval weakens economic "moat" of higher-quality drug/biotech companies, who have talent/$ 2run robust clinical trials. https://t.co/WOCngTfIbo

— Roy Friedman (@DewDiligence) November 11, 2016