Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

    (www.cnbc.com)
    249 points randycupertino | 15 comments | 16 Nov 25 23:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.849s | source | bottom
    Show context
    stego-tech ◴[17 Nov 25 00:03 UTC] No.45949690[source]▶
    I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model.

    What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech company it is, but those cured patients are far more likely to go on living longer, healthier lives, and in turn contribute additional value to society - which will impact others in ways that may also create additional value. That doesn't even get into the jobs and value created through the R&D process, testing, manufacturing, logistics of delivery, ongoing monitoring, etc. As long as the value created is more than the cost of the treatment, then it's a net-gain for the economy even if it's a net loss for that singular business.

    If all you're judging is the first-order impacts on a single business, you're missing the forest for the trees.

    replies(21): >>45949742 #>>45949753 #>>45949762 #>>45949770 #>>45949870 #>>45949906 #>>45950012 #>>45950170 #>>45950199 #>>45950225 #>>45950250 #>>45950263 #>>45950419 #>>45950655 #>>45950858 #>>45950892 #>>45950987 #>>45951787 #>>45952894 #>>45952915 #>>45955069 #
    anonymouskimmer ◴[17 Nov 25 00:18 UTC] No.45949762[source]▶
    If a person dies from a disorder in their 20s, they'll never buy your heart medication in their 70s. Today's patient is tomorrow's patient.
    replies(6): >>45949778 #>>45949795 #>>45949913 #>>45950213 #>>45951129 #>>45952180 #
    1. stego-tech ◴[17 Nov 25 00:24 UTC] No.45949795[source]▶
    The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society. The opportunity cost is something we've figured out from a medical perspective, but shareholders want returns today, not returns fifty years from now.

    That is what we need to address.

    replies(6): >>45949864 #>>45950092 #>>45950113 #>>45950529 #>>45950813 #>>45950955 #
    2. jojobas ◴[17 Nov 25 00:37 UTC] No.45949864[source]▶
    They could use profit in 50 years, but it will possibly be someone else's profit.
    replies(1): >>45950244 #
    3. reactordev ◴[17 Nov 25 01:26 UTC] No.45950092[source]▶
    The longer someone lives, the more potential value can be squeezed.

    This is how they should think.

    replies(1): >>45950675 #
    4. lotsofpulp ◴[17 Nov 25 01:32 UTC] No.45950113[source]▶
    >The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society.

    This is a function of how old the sick person is, as well as how severe their sickness and hence recovery will be. The data says, for the most part, healthcare is needed when one is close in age to exhausting their body’s capability anyway.

    5. bluGill ◴[17 Nov 25 02:00 UTC] No.45950244[source]▶
    If the executive lives longer it is their profit.
    replies(1): >>45951370 #
    6. shridharxp ◴[17 Nov 25 03:05 UTC] No.45950529[source]▶
    >The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society.

    This is questionable. Highly populous countries have worse living conditions than moderately populous ones, currently.

    replies(3): >>45950665 #>>45950737 #>>45951006 #
    7. axus ◴[17 Nov 25 03:40 UTC] No.45950665[source]▶
    Better living conditions cost more money per family, which leads to less children.
    8. tartoran ◴[17 Nov 25 03:41 UTC] No.45950675[source]▶
    I don't like the squeezing mindset but if people contribute to their health insurance and don't use those services because they're healthy it could be seen as squeezing those patients but it really isn't, it's just how insurance should work.
    9. gsky ◴[17 Nov 25 03:58 UTC] No.45950737[source]▶
    Highly populous countries were colonized and robbed off their resources until recently.
    10. BobbyTables2 ◴[17 Nov 25 04:17 UTC] No.45950813[source]▶
    It’s odd because many other industries like wineries, nut orchards, etc. do all play the long term game successfully.

    Even medical drugs take a while to develop but somehow the sales has to be “right now”.

    11. itake ◴[17 Nov 25 05:01 UTC] No.45950955[source]▶
    The government says that people can stop contributing to society when they reach 67. Some governments completely block you from continuing working.

    Some governments recognize that the longer people life, the more pensions / social security / healthcare resources need to be paid to that person.

    its much cheaper for governments for people to just die when they retire, tax their wealth at 40% and then free up resources (housing or healthcare) for the next generation.

    replies(1): >>45952598 #
    12. chickenbig ◴[17 Nov 25 05:16 UTC] No.45951006[source]▶
    > Highly populous countries have worse living conditions than moderately populous ones, currently.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-density-vs-pro...

    There does not look to be a strong correlation between population density and income, at least on a log-log scale across countries. But I would guess that these numbers hide a trend for cities to be richer than rural areas (subsistence farming etc).

    13. jojobas ◴[17 Nov 25 06:53 UTC] No.45951370{3}[source]▶
    It could be a different company's profit.
    14. casey2 ◴[17 Nov 25 11:12 UTC] No.45952598[source]▶
    No, again because of secondary effects, which of course the government keeps track of both implicitly and explicitly.
    replies(1): >>45958540 #
    15. itake ◴[17 Nov 25 21:28 UTC] No.45958540{3}[source]▶
    Can you elaborate on the secondary effects?