• @Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 year ago

    From what I saw elsewhere, the cost of the CRISPR treatment is roughly 2 million dollars and another way to implement the cure is via a modified flu virus. That version is roughly 3 million.

    • @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      461 year ago

      If only we knew what the real costs of treatment are, not the bullshit prices the industry decides they’ll say it is and then negotiate a barely more realistic real cost with insurance companies.

      Guess we’ll have to wait until this is approved in other countries for a real answer.

      • TheMurphy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year ago

        Guess we’ll have to wait until this is approved in other countries for a real answer.

        Hard to know the price in other countries when it’s free, eh?

        • krellor
          link
          fedilink
          261 year ago

          Just because they don’t issue a bill doesn’t mean they don’t track costs. They track labor, labor rates, and consumables.

          That said, this particular treatment is very involved. They harvest cells over multiple periods, send them to a lab to be modified, and when they are ready they do chemotherapy to kill your immune system, then do a bone marrow transplant to introduce the modified cells, and then you have to be in isolation in a hospital until your immune system comes back. Even the best facilities are saying they can only do 5-10 of these per year.

          Pretty crazy.

      • @thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        It’s actually not expensive just because. They don’t manufacture this stuff in a pill packing plant with an automated machine that just churns this out.

        Cell therapy takes blood from a patient and manufacturers with it to make the drug. It’s made manually by a team of people for a specific patient. The material costs alone are a quarter of the price in most cases.

        Cell therapy ain’t cheap.

      • j4yt33
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        It’s tricky because the money, time and opportunity cost gone into development, testing and the approval process are also priced into this. Plus the fact that this needs to not only break even but make some money plus the fact that this won’t be relevant for a huge market I think (not sure how prevalent SCD is). So it’s an outrageous price but probably not just plucked out of thin air

        • Dave
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          This is why pharma research should be publicly funded, and the results go directly into public domain. We will save so much money and lives in the long run that way.

          • @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 year ago

            A LOT of pharma research gets significant public funding. They then patent it and privatize the profits. Then spending millions on advertising.

            Then they try and justify pricing from the total cost of not only development, but also advertising budgets, while avoiding any mention of where the actual development funding came from in the first place.

            That’s not for everything, but it’s a large enough number of drugs and treatments that the entire industry is based on bullshit.

          • @cynar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            81 year ago

            The bigger one is to decouple development from manufacturing.

            Development should be done on a bounty type system. Both countries and individual groups can put money into bounties.

            Once the bounty is claimed, then the drug is effectively free for all to produce. This lets us leverage capitalism to push prices down.

            This would reshape drug development from max money, to most needed.

            • @mapiki@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I like this - but would companies that fail (in being second) not get credit for their work? You could imagine the second place actually having a more effective product at the end.

              • @cynar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                You don’t have a yes/no payout. You have a graded payout. E.g. you might have a 1 shot cure pay out the full amount, but a sustained treatment only pay a smaller %. This lets you encourage development of the most effective treatment, not the most profitable. It’s currently better to make a condition chronic, and so need treatment for a lifetime, than develop a cure.

                You also don’t pay out all at once. By spreading it out over sat 10 years. It means it can be adjusted if the company’s claims are… less than accurate.

        • @RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -101 year ago

          That’s bullshit! The most advanced technology ever developed by mankind and the most expensive to develop is AI. And I can pay Open AI 20 bucks a month to hire what is basically a human in the 10th too percentile for 20 bucks.

          The only difference is the elasticity of the market. If I need your fucking drug and you have a patent then I will have to give you all I have so I don’t die.

          The healthcare system in the US is just fucked up.

          • j4yt33
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            You have no idea how any of that works do you

  • @set_secret@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    wow this is huge for anyone with sickle cell that lives in a country that has universal healthcare. Other countries I guess it’s great for super rich people.

    • @SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Emergent tech always starts out very expensive.

      Consider that the phone you probably posted this on is significantly more powerful than the first computers, which were several orders of magnitude larger and more expensive.

      • @chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yeah, great points. Economies of scale have not kicked in, and I’m sure there are plenty of inefficiencies with the technologies they’re currently using.

        • OwlBoy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          It would be neat to know precisely what parts are expensive. Broad generalizations about how prices on goods go up and down aren’t quite as interesting. 😅

          • @thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            CliniMACS plus/prodigy, LOVO, G-Rrex and other expensive instruments.

            Grade B suites with grade A BSC’s and all the trained personnel to work on it.

            Shit costs a lot of money.

    • @thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Manufacturing costs alone are insane. I work in biopharma, specifically manufacturing.

      Most of these drugs you see on headlines are made from the blood of the patient. You can’t mass produce that.

  • ThoGot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    I’m wondering how such a treatment will be handled in countries with a high malaria prevalence