The price needs to come down by about $5000 to under $3000 to put it within grasp of what most pet owners (even those with plenty of cash reserves) is willing to spend on a diagnosis that is considered likely to be terminal. Remember Moose as part of a clinical trial so his owner probably didn't pay anything. It would be worth the companies investment to subsidize the treatment until they can get more participants and lower the price (like Telsa has done for its Model3).
I would not pay $7,000 for a sarcoma treatment because I understand it is a treatment and it is likely to (1) spread to other organs or (2) come back in another location. That is the nature of the sarcoma beast.
I estimate I have spent at least $15,000 on my dog over her life (she has had lots of problems and has been on hundreds of dollars a month medicine for the past 5 years). But I don't think I ever dropped more than $2,000 on a single bill. O.k I did spend nearly $2,000 on her two or three times within a month when she was really sick a few years back and they were trying to figure out why.
Yikes, I'm probably closer to $20,000 over her life.
Is there anyone here who would?
This maybe why we haven't heard of anymore treatments, I don't know anyone but the ultra wealthy who could justify that expense.
I'm not sure why pet insurance would be receptive until the price is less than what they would otherwise pay.
I thought the company had put out an estimated cost of $2500, but maybe that was a long-term estimate.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
