5 ms·

I hardly think a treatment costing $4000/dose to manufacture is inexpensive.

by pmiller2 10y ago

muninn_ 10y ago
To cure cancer and live? Seems pretty cheap to me.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  I didn't say it wouldn't be worth it, just that it's expensive. There are certainly access issues to consider here if this comes to market.
- gdulli 10y ago
  Some people don't have $4000 so it's not a matter of deciding whether parting with that much money is worthwhile. And the status of a lot of people's health insurance is suddenly up in the air.
  - popey456963 10y ago
    First result on Googling the normal cost of cancer treatments > Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. It seems $4,000 is rather a small fee in comparison.
    - awinder 10y ago
      Nitpick: it's $4000 per dose, and you're comparing to the monthly cost
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mariuolo 10y ago
    > Some people don't have $4000 so it's not a matter of deciding whether parting with that much money is worthwhile. But then those people wouldn't be able to afford other treatments either.
  - drak0n1c 10y ago
    The insurance market and the government providing medicaid loves these types of cures. An effective cure that costs a few thousand dollars is obviously worth the healthy cured people living to pay premiums for the rest of their healthy life. Much preferable to a costly patient needing many treatments in the tens of thousands of dollars in the insurance pool. The economics are much better than what the system currently bears.
logical42 10y ago
It seems somewhat inline with epipens being 600 dollars..
jstalin 10y ago
How much were the first large-screen LCDs? How much are they now?
- andruby 10y ago
  Technology products often decrease in price. But for cancer treatments it's the opposite. New treatments used to cost $4,500 a decade ago and cost $10,000 to $30,000 now.
  - jstalin 10y ago
    Agreed. Patent and insurance reform are crucial.
  - apathy 10y ago
    That's a function of perverse incentives, rather than some sort of immutable truth. If there were stronger penalties for (e.g.) cartel-like pricing (e.g. TKIs), and more price transparency for the true costs of care (ibid), we might see less of this. Or if, say, the primary market for such drugs adopted a single-payer system where the payer negotiated on behalf of the patients, rather than on behalf of its shareholders. Gleevec and Sprycel are the canonical examples of "competition makes the price go up" but if a single payer dominated the market and used this as leverage, it would be simple enough to just say "not at that price" and force manufacturers to play ball. The real problem is regulatory and legislative capture which prevents this from happening.
- karthikb 10y ago
  Unfortunately the market for therapies does not follow the same market scaling model as consumer electronics due to the various financial models of insurance companies, government subsidies, etc.
davesque 10y ago
If I understand that the article is claiming a new treatment could cure cancer for $4000, then this is orders of magnitude cheaper than all the combined treatments that are administered now to treat cancer.
- givinguflac 10y ago
  I agree the manufacturing cost of $4,000 doesn't seem unreasonable, but that's the manufacturing cost. The article also states either of these competing treatments would cost insurers half a million $ or more, so it will be much more expensive than today's treatments. Still worth it, but absurdly expensive especially compared to the manufacturing cost.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  If you read a little more carefully, it says the full treatment costs about $50k.
tyingq 10y ago
It appears the treatment was a single dose. " Two infants with relapsed refractory CD19+ B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia received lymphodepleting chemotherapy and anti-CD52 serotherapy, followed by a single-dose infusion of UCART19 cells"[1] With that context, it's potentially cheaper than other therapies. [1]http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/374/eaaj2013 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/374/eaaj2013
Shivetya 10y ago
doubt it would stay that expensive if proven, mass manufacturing surely would drop it quickly. with regards to the mention of other companies more complex methods, perhaps its merely reminding people that complex solutions are not always the only way

I hardly think a treatment costing $4000/dose to manufacture is inexpensive.

muninn_ 10y ago

To cure cancer and live? Seems pretty cheap to me.

pmiller2 10y ago
I didn't say it wouldn't be worth it, just that it's expensive. There are certainly access issues to consider here if this comes to market.
gdulli 10y ago
Some people don't have $4000 so it's not a matter of deciding whether parting with that much money is worthwhile. And the status of a lot of people's health insurance is suddenly up in the air.
- popey456963 10y ago
  First result on Googling the normal cost of cancer treatments > Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. It seems $4,000 is rather a small fee in comparison.
  - awinder 10y ago
    Nitpick: it's $4000 per dose, and you're comparing to the monthly cost
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mariuolo 10y ago
  > Some people don't have $4000 so it's not a matter of deciding whether parting with that much money is worthwhile. But then those people wouldn't be able to afford other treatments either.
- drak0n1c 10y ago
  The insurance market and the government providing medicaid loves these types of cures. An effective cure that costs a few thousand dollars is obviously worth the healthy cured people living to pay premiums for the rest of their healthy life. Much preferable to a costly patient needing many treatments in the tens of thousands of dollars in the insurance pool. The economics are much better than what the system currently bears.

logical42 10y ago

It seems somewhat inline with epipens being 600 dollars..

jstalin 10y ago

How much were the first large-screen LCDs? How much are they now?

andruby 10y ago
Technology products often decrease in price. But for cancer treatments it's the opposite. New treatments used to cost $4,500 a decade ago and cost $10,000 to $30,000 now.
- jstalin 10y ago
  Agreed. Patent and insurance reform are crucial.
- apathy 10y ago
  That's a function of perverse incentives, rather than some sort of immutable truth. If there were stronger penalties for (e.g.) cartel-like pricing (e.g. TKIs), and more price transparency for the true costs of care (ibid), we might see less of this. Or if, say, the primary market for such drugs adopted a single-payer system where the payer negotiated on behalf of the patients, rather than on behalf of its shareholders. Gleevec and Sprycel are the canonical examples of "competition makes the price go up" but if a single payer dominated the market and used this as leverage, it would be simple enough to just say "not at that price" and force manufacturers to play ball. The real problem is regulatory and legislative capture which prevents this from happening.
karthikb 10y ago
Unfortunately the market for therapies does not follow the same market scaling model as consumer electronics due to the various financial models of insurance companies, government subsidies, etc.

davesque 10y ago

If I understand that the article is claiming a new treatment could cure cancer for $4000, then this is orders of magnitude cheaper than all the combined treatments that are administered now to treat cancer.

givinguflac 10y ago
I agree the manufacturing cost of $4,000 doesn't seem unreasonable, but that's the manufacturing cost. The article also states either of these competing treatments would cost insurers half a million $ or more, so it will be much more expensive than today's treatments. Still worth it, but absurdly expensive especially compared to the manufacturing cost.
jcoffland 10y ago
If you read a little more carefully, it says the full treatment costs about $50k.

tyingq 10y ago

It appears the treatment was a single dose. " Two infants with relapsed refractory CD19+ B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia received lymphodepleting chemotherapy and anti-CD52 serotherapy, followed by a single-dose infusion of UCART19 cells"[1] With that context, it's potentially cheaper than other therapies. [1]http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/374/eaaj2013 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/374/eaaj2013

Shivetya 10y ago

doubt it would stay that expensive if proven, mass manufacturing surely would drop it quickly. with regards to the mention of other companies more complex methods, perhaps its merely reminding people that complex solutions are not always the only way