Replies to post #151352 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

Here's my point: "Hard physics" doesn't necessarily trump politics/ideology, even if and when you substitute "hard economics" for "hard physics" And even in "hard physics," science does not necessarily trump politics/ideology. (You might want to go back and read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.") There is no automatic or necessary operation by which "hard economics" is translated into action on the political side. There are unbelievably complex hierarchical, mediating systems and structures that make such a translation problematical, at best, most especially in the U.S.

I am going to do an about face. I looked up the health care expenditures in the US vs GDP and while they were currently growing as per my previous understanding they were not exhibiting the growth curve I expected. It does not appear to be an exponential curve. From 1970 to 1990 it grew by 5 pct of GDP - and then about another 5 pct in the next 20 years. I think such linear curves are much less likely to cause a serious collision with financial physics and incremental changes are likely to work - especially in the short term (I.e. next decade or two).

That said, any component that is growing exponentially and is a significant fraction of healthcare expenditures is likely to get 'changed' at some point. Anyone seen a breakdown vs time of healthcare dollar types (e.g. Chronic drugs, acute drugs, hospital services, outpatient services, diagnostic tests, ...)?

I have simply tried to challenge his argument that England and "the rest of the world" will be models for drug-pricing in the United States.

FWIW I think it is unlikely that something as black and white as NICE will get implemented - but rules that look different but perform the same function seem a reasonable expectation - the US is suffering from massive entitlement at all income levels so such decisions have to be hidden. Whether cancer drugs in particular will suffer from this is not obvious to me (see my above question about where the money is going)?

[DewDiligence]

Re: Drug-pricing pressure and cancer-drug companies as a “sucker bet”

This whole discussion began with Dew's attempting to bolster his argument that investing in oncology-oriented small-cap biotech stocks, specifically ARIA, is a "sucker's bet."

That’s not exactly right. What I actually said (in #msg-76257542) is this:

If you define success from a commercial standpoint, your [i.e. masterlongevity’s in #msg-76257251] assertion is guaranteed. There are only so many reimbursement dollars available in the aggregate for all cancer drugs, so it’s mathematically impossible for more than a tiny percentage of these drug candidates to be commercially successful.

There are exceptions, of course; however, all told, cancer-drug candidates are a sucker bet, IMHO [emphasis newly added].

What you left out in #msg-80956091 is the qualified rather than absolute nature of my opinion on investing in cancer-drug companies.