5 ms·
The drug does not "cost" $1,000/day. Rather, the manufacturer, Gilead, is selling it at that price in the US. According to the article, Gilead is offering the
by cs702 13y ago
The drug does not "cost" $1,000/day. Rather, the manufacturer, Gilead, is selling it at that price in the US.
According to the article, Gilead is offering the same drug in Egypt "at a 99 percent discount to U.S. prices, or about $900 for a full course of treatment," and "wants to tier its pricing based on a country's per-capita income. So patients in the U.K would pay about $57,000 ...while Germans would pay $66,000 and Americans are paying $84,000."
Inevitably, a black market will develop for this drug, because the arbitrage opportunity is substantial. People who're willing to break the law will buy the drug in Egypt for north of $900 and sell it in the US for a lot less than $90,000.
--
PS. Even though the title of the article is linkbait, and the article itself has little content, I found it worth reading, because I learned something new: pharmaceutical companies are selling drugs in developing countries at a 99% discount (!) to developed-country prices. I knew prices were lower in developing countries, but not that low.
- refurb 13y agoI'm sure a black market will develop, but it will be pretty limited as the FDA bans the importation of pharmaceuticals unless they have already been approved for import. However, I've read that purchasing a 3 month supply for personal use is allowed, so maybe it will turn out to be something big? However, from what I've read, drug manufacturers but strict limits on drugs produced in low income countries. If there are 500K patients with HCV, the drug companies is going to put a quota on how much is sold. If Westerners start importing it, then that means Egyptians will go without.
- jrs235 13y agoExcept, I do believe, there are some countries (I want to say Argentina or Brazil) which do not recognize drug patents and will manufacture the drugs themselves. Edit: India is another country that comes to mind.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoBrazil specifically invalidated Merck's HIV drug patent. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c7d3f1f4-fa78-11db-8bd0-000b5df10621.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c7d3f1f4-fa78-11db-8bd0-000b5df106...
- swamp40 13y agoWell, for such a huge monetary difference, patients could fly to Egypt or Africa for three months of treatment. That should be 100% legal. But nowadays with no preexisting condition clauses, just sign up at healthcare.gov and away you go...
- rch 13y agoWe shouldn't conflate 'access to basic healthcare' with providing 'all forms of treatment without regard to cost'. More progress could probably be made if we were discussing a less emotionally charged example though. Consider eyeglasses vs. contacts for instance; much easier to work through the issue there.
- jvm 13y agoI'm sure it's quite cheap to produce, but the true cost is in the research. Having the US shoulder that cost while offering a much cheaper rate is a commendable model in my book. If they are charging an excessive amount in the states I'm not defending that policy, but varying by national wealth is surely a step in the direction of fairness.
- MetaCosm 13y agoIt is the free rider problem made manifest, which is great for free riders until the system breaks down. The US system is slowly making its way towards breaking down -- with no one footing the bill, what will be the impact on research? You see "fair" and I see "unsustainable".
- bryanlarsen 13y agoI was under the impression that the bulk of the cost of a drug was not the research, but the clinical trials and the FDA approval process. If so, it's only fair to charge more in countries where it costs more to get the drug approved.
- tinco 13y agoI think it's acceptable to file clinical trials and the FDA approval process under research.
- LyndsySimon 13y agoClinical trials, sure - but anything that's specific to the FDA is squarely "regulatory compliance", not "research".