11 ms·
Doesn’t seem that unreasonable. $712 for a course of medicine that reduces the death rate from COVID-19 by 50%? The $17.74 they are comparing it to ignores the
by javagram 5y ago
Doesn’t seem that unreasonable. $712 for a course of medicine that reduces the death rate from COVID-19 by 50%?
The $17.74 they are comparing it to ignores the need to pay for R&D. How would drug companies pay for all the trials and science to bring new drugs to market (including the many candidates that fail but still required investment to see if they would work) if all drugs were sold at “cost” ignoring the investment of creating the IP in the first place?
- abduhl 5y agoThis argument makes sense in the normal course of drug development, but drugs which are financed by the federal government like here (to what extent the tens of millions the government gave amounts to the full cost of R&D I don’t know) should not be allowed to be sold back to the American public above cost. We paid for (a portion) of the R&D already, pharma companies should not be allowed to charge us again.
- B-Con 5y agoHow much of the R&D was financed by taxpayers? Seems like it should be a proportional ownership stake, not all or nothing.
- javagram 5y agoThe article states significant costs were borne by Merck and the associated company as the US government (BARDA) declined to fund the development of the drug. If the drug development had been fully funded by the US government, I’d see a stronger case. Instead, it seems like the funding here is via a pre-purchase agreement at $712 per course. We’ve essentially funded it for poor countries too because the article mentions the drug is being immediately licensed in India as a generic at $12.