Dr. Lucky Tran 
Gilead has announced that lenacapavir, the game-changing HIV prevention drug just approved by the FDA will cost $28,218 USD per person per year.
Researchers say a generic version could be made for just $25 per person a year.
Capitalism kills.
pmonks (330ppm)@luckytran Of course a generic version could be manufactured more cheaply - those companies don’t incur much if any R&D, clinical trial, regulatory approval, etc. costs.
And before anyone accuses me of living at the opposite end of the spectrum, no I don’t think drug developers should be able to generate massive profits off their IP in perpetuity either. But the cost of development is real, substantial (especially due to the large %age of R&D failures that we never hear about), and has to be amortised somehow or else drug innovation will halt.
Kris Hardy@pmonks @luckytran Many of these costs are often funded by NIH contracts. I haven't gone through to see how much of US taxpayer dollars have already gone into it's development, and Gilead hasn't published their ROI AFAIK, so it is currently impossible to tell whether the price is reasonable or not. And THAT is a huge problem.
The Doctor
unlofl [Promoted Toot]@drwho @nonlinear @pmonks @luckytran and marketing is frequently a bigger part of their capital expenditures than research.
If we ban drug ads, then they'd be able to make drugs without gouging us /s
@unlofl @drwho @nonlinear @luckytran While I 100% agree with banning marketing of pharmaceuticals (and medical devices, and supplements, and beauty products, and …), and indeed some countries do exactly that, I dispute your claim that it’s a larger part of the cost of drug development than R&D. I suspect you’re failing to account for the majority of R&D that silently, but expensively, fails. Science is *hard*.
@pmonks @drwho @nonlinear @luckytran I'm just saying we should fuck them until they stop turning a profit, then we can readjust from there to give them a reasonable 10-20% return
And science is hard, which is why they avoid investing in it most of the time.
@unlofl @drwho @nonlinear @luckytran Abrupt changes such as the ones you’re suggesting will cripple innovation in the short to medium term. Are you willing to gamble with your health, and the health of your friends and family, in the years it will take for that to play out?
And to reiterate the 2nd paragraph in my original reply: no I don’t believe that drug developers and manufacturers should be given carte blanche to maximise profit off vulnerable sick people. But innovation is also valuable (especially given how many diseases are poorly treated or untreatable today), and has to be paid for somehow.
Lord Bowlich@pmonks @unlofl @drwho @nonlinear @luckytran
I hardly consider the efforts of private firms innovative.
If we wanted innovation, we would nationalize them so they no longer would need to be tethered by the limitations of profitability.
Peter@drwho
Skimmed this entire thread to see someone draw this parallel.