So my comments on the article:
1) Primary point is excess cost for system for the new drug. Seems short sighted given the cost of prior treatments and the fact that this probably a cure. So real issue is that too many people will actually get treated this year and insurance companies didn't plan for cost of additional treatments. May be very true, but shouldn't apply across the board. Cost of drug issuance will probably go up a lot next year, and many years in the future. Of course, the worse case situation for investors is some kind of price control, which seems almost impossible, but, if the costs (~$20B+/yr in '16-'17) are deemed "too high," I guess it is possible.
2) Insurance companies that hope that competition will bring down the cost are of new drug are surely not listening to what ABBV has been saying. Who really knows what will happen in the market place, but seems a little unlikely that there will be a huge difference (though several here have suggested that ABBV may have to compete on price more than they would like due to other issues).
3) Inference is that the insurance companies are talking about GT1 patients which would support the position that GILD sales are still for many more GT1 patients than originally thought would be the case. Even though there are many more GT1 patients, the more that are treated by the current drug, the less there will be for the next set of drugs. Education/advertising to identify more patients becomes more important.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
