My first thought was that it could be good for kids, who are less good at checking for trace amounts of allergens, but then I saw that it requires injections, which kids aren't so great at.
My first thought was that it could be good for kids, who are less good at checking for trace amounts of allergens, but then I saw that it requires injections, which kids aren't so great at.
A lot of drug manufacturers offer these programs: the bargain is essentially that they'll cover the brunt of your copay cost so long as your insurance company is still paying for the rest of it. Better to collect a few grand from the insurance company and reimburse the patient for a few hundred than to miss out on the sale entirely.
The federal government treats these as illegal kickbacks: https://oig.hhs.gov/documents/special-advisory-bulletins/878...
It feels wildly perverse. I’m incentivized to purchase this “expensive” medication once or twice and then the cost of all of my medical care the rest of the year is negligible.
https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/med...
https://m.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/10109c-10110d-10118m-1012...
My guess is not favourably for the US. My wife was diagnosed with MS about a year before we moved to America and, since I knew we were moving and was thinking about insurance, I asked the pharmacist once what they billed the govt per dose (monthly). We paid $40 out of pocket and the govt paid $1300 AUD.
Our insurance in the US pays nearly $10k USD/m for the same drug.
More importantly, wishing you and your wife resilience, strength and as much good luck in health as is possible for your journey ahead.
In her case, this doesn't cure anything, but manages symptoms of MCAS. Not ideal, but way better than life without it.
Creating new drugs is absurdly expensive. Most new drugs target small population groups, which is why treatments do not already exist - the low hanging fruit with large market potential gets targeted first.
Just be happy a flag is planted in the ground. New drugs will be created from this that are different enough to avoid the patent, and new research will enhance it and reduce the side effects. This is just the beginning.
So there is plenty of space for lower prices. Plenty.
Here's the 2023 report from Roche, which owns Genentech.
https://assets.roche.com/f/176343/x/0ef2047502/ar23-roche-ho...
Page 17 shows that R&D costs for pharma is 10-20x larger than equity-based compensation. That's all stock-based compensation, for execs and regular people. Your claim is that it's the opposite.
Take Pfizer, R&D is $11B. You think executive comp is more than $11B?
The CEO total comp is $24M or 2%. The exec team is less than 10 people.
At least try to make believable claims.
I'm not sure why a generic hasn't hit the market yet, though. Maybe there's not enough demand to make it lucrative enough, unlike the golden child adalimumab...
That's not to say there are no generic MABs, it's that it is a far costlier process for the generic manufacturers to get up and running.