Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.
Not sure it's really easier though, economics and emotional affect are often at odds. Ask people if a hospital administrator should spend 100k on either a single liver transplant for an 11 year old girl, or spread over 100 less expensive life saving interventions for 50 year olds, most people will say save the girl and demand the administrator be fired for even needing to think about it.
(Half remembered but apparently real scenario, though I'm not sure where from)
But as a society with limited resources we need to set priorities. I hope everyone will be able to receive treatment.
However, such treatment is only for rich people, or from rich countries.
Even some countries in Europe are not reach enough to pay for such medicine. Like Zolgensma, which also costs around 2 millions USD to cure SMA.
So in essence, you'd be trading the equivalent of one person's entire lifetime of productivity in exchange for the first generation of a radical new medicine whose outcome is unknowable.
I don't think it's crass to err on the side of caution for such a scenario.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_personal_income_i...
So if there even is an increase in the total cost of treatments, it's not at all a given it's a a net increase once account for decades of additional working life.
What if you are on those 10 poor kids he mentioned ?
I don't agree that OP statement is "crass". It's a very pragmatic and important question we have wrestle with.
But almost all care services end benefiting from some sort of subsidies. Even if just by increasing the cost of inssurance for the rest of the population
2m is much higher that either costs or economical output the treated person could deliver through lifetime.