2 ms·
I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.drugood.com/2018/07/15/gleevecs-cost-and-price/ http://www.drugood.com/2018/07/15/gleevecs-cost-and-price/ Gleeve
by GiorgioG 6y ago
I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.drugood.com/2018/07/15/gleevecs-cost-and-price/ http://www.drugood.com/2018/07/15/gleevecs-cost-and-price/
Gleevec did not take many years at all for Novartis to recover its trivial relative costs and generate billions of dollars of profit for nearly 2 decades. The problem is when you have a disease and there's only one treatment around, you'll literally pay whatever it costs - because not having it means you're dead.
These companies then turn around and extract as much money as they possibly can. They're monopolies, pure and simple.
I've seen this with my son's diabetes as well. The costs continue to rise (insulin, Dexcom sensors/transmitters, etc.) I've turned down jobs because their health benefits only covered a lousier insulin pump / glucose monitor due to an exclusive agreement with their chosen health insurer.
The problem is if you or a loved one isn't sick, this doesn't affect you one damn bit. My dad (an italian-born immigrant) has always complained to me about our healthcare system (and he had a great healthcare plan as a GM employee.) I didn't really paid it much attention because I was young and healthy. Now, quite a bit older and with family members with a variety of health issues, I realized that he (in my opinion) was right.
- jandrewrogers 6y agoYet Novartis only has 15% margins. Not shabby but not exactly living large, and much worse than tech companies. You aren’t going to move the needle on drug costs by making those margins 0%, and no amount of wishing will change that. That’s math. I guess you could pay people less at Novartis but it probably won’t have the desired effect. These things cost a certain amount of money to produce. What you are complaining about is how that cost is distributed among the people that might consume it. However, the implications of redistributing that cost are not particularly palatable either. Ultimately, someone has to pay for development and there are only so many places you can hide the necessary revenue that no one wants to pay. These costs don’t automagically disappear through political sleight of hand.
- freeone3000 6y ago>the implications of redistributing that cost are not particularly palatable either Perhaps not to you, but socialized healthcare is being advocated for by several elected officials, so it's not completely off-the-table.