←back to thread

275 points swores | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.422s | source
Show context
hi-v-rocknroll ◴[] No.40173019[source]
Semaglutide retails for $17k USD/year in the US but costs only $60 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that the autoinjectors are "expensive", but not $17k/year and oral forms are coming online to make this item moot. In limited circumstances, excessive profits cross into the realm of price gouging and shouldn't be allowed by regulatory enforcement.
replies(9): >>40173117 #>>40173204 #>>40173218 #>>40173309 #>>40173371 #>>40173374 #>>40173583 #>>40173707 #>>40174265 #
pfdietz ◴[] No.40173117[source]
The cost of manufacturing the drug is only relevant if the drug can be discovered and proved effective by the Magic Drug Fairy.

Here in the real world, that manufacturing cost is largely irrelevant.

replies(4): >>40173280 #>>40173459 #>>40173643 #>>40174064 #
1. willcipriano ◴[] No.40173459[source]
> the Magic Drug Fairy.

Thats the government funded universities.

replies(2): >>40173569 #>>40173734 #
2. pfdietz ◴[] No.40173569[source]
They do not, in fact, do the hard work of drug development.
3. philipkglass ◴[] No.40173734[source]
The universities find compounds that work in cell cultures or mice. They don't currently optimize candidate compounds for use in humans or perform actual human clinical trials. In theory, there's no reason that a government couldn't fund all phases of drug development through final approval and then manufacture new drugs without seeking a profit. But most compounds that work in mice fail in clinical trials, and human testing is a lot more expensive than mouse testing.

There would need to be consistent support for such a drug development program even though most attempts will fail and "breakthrough" drugs will arrive irregularly, separated by many years. It is politically difficult to maintain that sort of long term support in a system where voters and representatives are swayed by short-term arguments to cut programs that don't show results.