3 ms·

The state has had discussions with other companies, including celebrity investor Mark Cuban’s for-profit drug company, the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Co. It is b

by mhb 4y ago

The state has had discussions with other companies, including celebrity investor Mark Cuban’s for-profit drug company, the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Co. It is building its own manufacturing plant, like Civica, but for now sells drugs online to anyone at wholesale cost plus a 15% markup. Founder Dr. Alex Oshmyansky said that the company’s talks with California fizzled out early on but that he’d be open to future discussions. Cuban is the chief investor in the company, Oshmyansky said. Would be interesting to know why these discussions fizzled.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
- wumpus 4y ago
  Thank you for illustrating how toxic many political discussions are.
wahern 4y ago
It seems there's some sort of medium-term mandate to build manufacturing facilities in California.[1] Presumably these preexisting ventures aren't interested in building a facility in California (instead of elsewhere), nor keen on working with a state that may eventually compete directly with them. [1] It's unclear how strict is this mandate. The 2020 legislation only requires investigating the feasibility of directly manufacturing drugs in-state. See the summary at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB852 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... as well as section 127694 specifically. I'm guessing Newsom is trying to find a way to justify building an in-state manufacturing facility. It fits into the state's broader policy to develop the biotechnology sector, which is already significant--depending on metric, first in the nation or second to Massachusetts. Not sure it's worth delaying these deals over, but perhaps Civica and others are demanding long-term contracts in an attempt to preempt California building a competitor. (It's understandable why they wouldn't appreciate more competition. Even for a charitable venture, more capacity would impact their financial viability, especially considering that preexisting, for-profit suppliers will aggressively use their pricing and market powers to try to suffocate these new ventures. OTOH, that's exactly why one might want a state-backed facility, so they're not beholden to investors--even beneficent investors--and the ruthless economics of the market. And theoretically a state-owned facility might be more resilient, either legally or politically, to Federal government suppression, which is one of the primary tools the pharmaceutical industry has used to rig the market in the U.S.)

by mhb 4y ago

ceeplusplus 4y ago

wumpus 4y ago
Thank you for illustrating how toxic many political discussions are.

wahern 4y ago

It seems there's some sort of medium-term mandate to build manufacturing facilities in California.[1] Presumably these preexisting ventures aren't interested in building a facility in California (instead of elsewhere), nor keen on working with a state that may eventually compete directly with them. [1] It's unclear how strict is this mandate. The 2020 legislation only requires investigating the feasibility of directly manufacturing drugs in-state. See the summary at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB852 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... as well as section 127694 specifically. I'm guessing Newsom is trying to find a way to justify building an in-state manufacturing facility. It fits into the state's broader policy to develop the biotechnology sector, which is already significant--depending on metric, first in the nation or second to Massachusetts. Not sure it's worth delaying these deals over, but perhaps Civica and others are demanding long-term contracts in an attempt to preempt California building a competitor. (It's understandable why they wouldn't appreciate more competition. Even for a charitable venture, more capacity would impact their financial viability, especially considering that preexisting, for-profit suppliers will aggressively use their pricing and market powers to try to suffocate these new ventures. OTOH, that's exactly why one might want a state-backed facility, so they're not beholden to investors--even beneficent investors--and the ruthless economics of the market. And theoretically a state-owned facility might be more resilient, either legally or politically, to Federal government suppression, which is one of the primary tools the pharmaceutical industry has used to rig the market in the U.S.)