Hacker News Reader

Comment by saulrh | Hacker News Reader

The cynic in me says that it was probably priced to cost exactly the same as the expected lifetime expense of treating of the disease.

View on HN

In fact this is exactly how they set the price for these curative treatments. Gargantuan sums but hypothetically on average cheaper than the overall lifetime costs of living with the disease. Lots of recent debates on this in the world of Hepatitis C.

pricing like that only lasts as long as the patent, the argument being that without the opportunity for that pricing, the research for the drug would not be worthwhile in the first place.

I'm not arguing this is true, but I wouldn't accept a counterargument based on "but it's people, it's people, think of the children"

It’s probably one of the precious few arguments where “think of the children” is actually valid.

Here are some other counterarguments:

- Most formal drug research, today, is already not worthwhile. The norm is that you spend several billion dollars and recover nothing.

- Most achievements that were worthwhile in retrospect were not worthwhile prospectively. Therefore it is not obvious that things need to be worthwhile prospectively in order to be done. Going into a career as a rock star is, objectively, stupid. But we have a huge supply of wannabe rock stars anyway.

A more charitable interpretation might be that getting under the cut off is why it's one of the first treatments available. More treatments will become available as the overall costs start beating out the costs of living with $disease.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com