Replies to post #108396 on Biotech Values

[oldberkeley]

From the Forbes article (bolding mine):

"Whatever solutions emerge, it's likely that drug costs will have to come down and that some patients will be denied medicine because their chances are too slim. Says Saltz: "We're going to have to stop taking the stance that every patient has to get every last shot at survival. The days of developing drugs and not worrying what they cost are over."

I agree and have for some time. Of course the problem is that when push comes to shove, in a real situation, the answer is but not my mother, not my child, not me. And those would be horrible choices to face.

Not to mention that in any sort of national debate, the "death panel" silliness begins.

[DewDiligence]

What will become of high-priced drugs with modest efficacy? Here are a few related posts from the iHub archive:

#msg-54342223 Dr. Saltz, again
#msg-54744159 Beginning of the end for healthcare ‘insurers’
#msg-44712778 Two charts that speak volumes
#msg-41681726 Barron’s editorial
#msg-11432606 Many cancer drugs chasing few reimbursement dollars

[vinmantoo]

People don't want to face the facts they we don't have an unlimited amount of money and the idiots on Wall Street fuel the fire with even more unrealistic comments. I read where one analyst was talking about Provenge and saying DNDN wasn't charging enough because some drugs cost $200K to $400K per patient. Now those drugs are orphan drugs and the high price was set to enable companies to keep making drugs for a very small patient population. It is absurd and a mark of the delusional greed that fuels Wall Street to use that type of pricing for a large patient population.

Now if the US government decides that the benefits shown by DNDN isn't worth the $93K price tag, DNDN will have to lower the price and accept less profits to get Medicare approval. What a shame.