4 ms·
My line of thinking has always been that developing and selling drugs is very expensive. Without the possibility of being acquired and selling a vial for five f
by CamelCaseName 10y ago
My line of thinking has always been that developing and selling drugs is very expensive. Without the possibility of being acquired and selling a vial for five figures, there's no way it would have existed in the first place.
Going off the numbers in the article, MNK sold $1B last year. At $34K/vial that's about almost 12 vials per infant (2,500/yr) per year. (Assuming the course of treatment is one year)
When the vials were selling for $40 each, they would have brought in $1.2MM - I'm no expert, but that doesn't even sound like enough to rent a lab and hire scientists/technicians.
The real headline of this article should be, "MNK settles $100MM lawsuit over anti-competitive drug pricing behavior" (or something more catchy) -- That, to me, is the real interesting bit.
How regulations work around drug pricing is where media focus should be, and there are just as many soundbites in that discussion for the media to latch on to as well.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- maxerickson 10y agoOf course, we know from history that it existed for $40 a vial. Looking into it, it was identified in the 1930s and a synthetic analogue was developed in the 1960s. I imagine the one weird trick they were using to bring down costs is only to devote a small number of days each year to producing the particular drug. It'd be interesting to see the current production costs.