3 ms·

The Hep C cure was 100k USD when it released in 2014. 10 years later, it’s 25k USD max before insurance. The price you see now will likely shrink in the coming

The Hep C cure was 100k USD when it released in 2014. 10 years later, it’s 25k USD max before insurance. The price you see now will likely shrink in the coming years. Pretty good opportunity for an analysis on CRISPR pricing if you have a well-trafficked blog and are willing to track this for the next five years.

biomcgary 3y ago
And much better than a liver transplant.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > And much better than a liver transplant. There are a lot of steps in between "acute HCV infection" and "requiring a liver transplant", and many insurers, even today, will require you to go through some or all of them before considering paying for HCV antivirals.
chimeracoder 3y ago
> The Hep C cure was 100k USD when it released in 2014. 10 years later, it’s 25k USD max before insurance. That's not a great comparison. There was a previous cure for hepatitis C before the first antiviral-based cure 2013, and the initial treatment regiment for the antiviral based regimen was a hybrid of the two, before they settled on a fully antiviral-based treatment. The reason that the antivirals came down in price so quickly was because so many nearly-identical ones came on the market within a couple of years. That's due to the discovery of a particular protein and corresponding class of inhibitors some years earlier, which was not patented, opening the door for a flood of drugs which are all functionally identical in purpose and mechanism of action, but chemically distinct and eligible for separate patent protections. That came at a time when political and other pressures made some private insurers more willing to approve treatment (usually after a few rounds of denials and appeals) - but again, with an emphasis on some, because there are large classes of people for whom it is difficult or impossible to get treated for HCV today. (They're just not the ones likely to comment on HN). Contrast to this treatment, which is for a congenital condition that does not have the same political pressure to address, and for which a significant financial barrier to access is not merely the costs of the drug, but the cost of the associated care (chemotherapy, etc.) which is not included in the quoted price. In addition the patent laws function differently in this case, to the detriment of patients. The history of hepatitis C and its treatment is fairly idiosyncratic and it would be a mistake to use the price trajectory of HCV antivirals as a predictor for any other treatment.

biomcgary 3y ago

And much better than a liver transplant.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> And much better than a liver transplant. There are a lot of steps in between "acute HCV infection" and "requiring a liver transplant", and many insurers, even today, will require you to go through some or all of them before considering paying for HCV antivirals.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> The Hep C cure was 100k USD when it released in 2014. 10 years later, it’s 25k USD max before insurance. That's not a great comparison. There was a previous cure for hepatitis C before the first antiviral-based cure 2013, and the initial treatment regiment for the antiviral based regimen was a hybrid of the two, before they settled on a fully antiviral-based treatment. The reason that the antivirals came down in price so quickly was because so many nearly-identical ones came on the market within a couple of years. That's due to the discovery of a particular protein and corresponding class of inhibitors some years earlier, which was not patented, opening the door for a flood of drugs which are all functionally identical in purpose and mechanism of action, but chemically distinct and eligible for separate patent protections. That came at a time when political and other pressures made some private insurers more willing to approve treatment (usually after a few rounds of denials and appeals) - but again, with an emphasis on some, because there are large classes of people for whom it is difficult or impossible to get treated for HCV today. (They're just not the ones likely to comment on HN). Contrast to this treatment, which is for a congenital condition that does not have the same political pressure to address, and for which a significant financial barrier to access is not merely the costs of the drug, but the cost of the associated care (chemotherapy, etc.) which is not included in the quoted price. In addition the patent laws function differently in this case, to the detriment of patients. The history of hepatitis C and its treatment is fairly idiosyncratic and it would be a mistake to use the price trajectory of HCV antivirals as a predictor for any other treatment.