Edited post now that I found the article.

That is horrifying and terribly irresponsible from Gilead, unless they have another plan to ensure access.

I read an article just 2 days ago that Gilliad is "allowing" generic manufacturers to produce it at only $600 per course. (how sweet of them). $3k per course in Murica, $4k-$5k if you have insurance. What a f'n joke.

It's a total dick move.

Remdesivir is a treatment. At some point there will be a vaccine developed somewhere. And if it is outside the US, how many Governments are going to be sympathetic to allowing their pharma companies to export vaccine doses to the US in priority to domestically or to other countries?

That price tag is on a 10 dose course. Most data is leading to a 5 dose course so cut that price in half. Now is that still a good price? I have no idea, I'm not in the industry and don't know the ROI for a drug like this but I do know a lot of investment goes into developing these drugs.

If I were a CEO I'd just say I would like to break even on this thing. World pandemic, not wishing to make a profit just do it for the better good.

I probably read the same article; their justification was a) the amount of money they've invested in remdesivir development and b) it cuts off an avg 4 days from the hospital stay and $4-6k is less than 4 more days in the hospital.

---

I miss YaHey

The article I guess you’re referencing also states that the drug was developed after trials in various countries and para the question whether people would have volunteered in these countries if they knew access to the drug in those countries would be limited. That, to me, is a good example how there is shared risk developing this drug and for the USA to basically monopolies supply is morally wrong, although completely expected.

Boo fucking who. Germany bought enough supply for their needs. The US bought enough supply for their needs. No one else did. It doesn't affect mortality just length of symptoms in those that would survive anyway. There's no issue other than people just like hating on the US, Big Pharma, Trump, Capitalism, US Healthcare, and don't want to admit their country's health-care system didn't make the buy for economic reasons. There's no moral issue. Furthermore I expect and demand my country put my needs before the rest of the World's needs so even if there was an actual "moral issue" I would be okay with it. No one asks why China is vaccinating their entire military first?

There are many non-U.S. companies developing 'vid-related drugs. British-Swedish AstraZeneca is one of the furthest along in a possible vaccine, apparently. If every company/nation uses the the IMMA GET MINE, F U approach, that's not necessarily good for the the U.S. or the world.

BUT WHATABOUT CHINA!!

Consider you're having to pick China to find a lower ethical standard.

Yes, but that would require both knowledge of the wider world and also long term thinking. Can't expect people to have both of those.

It was a separate clause to indicate Realpolitik still exists. Deduct 3 points

It will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out.

Nothing in that article said the deal was exclusive of any other. "Deals" are not bad. Deals are necessary. That's how you buy things.





Yes, I would. Exclusively reserving an important drug for one country doesn't sound good to me.

I have no problem with pharma companies charging what the market will bear. But, your ROI point is not correct. Remdesivir was developed a long time ago for a different purpose (Hep C). The Covid market opportunity is essentially found money for Gilead.

So.....

Thought my post was clear. The pricing of this drug would not likely be governed by ROI considerations. It could be based on what Gilead thinks the market will bear (the quoted prices suggest this) or it could be based on charging less because Gilead wants the favorable PR. But, in either case, it does not really matter what Gilead spent developing the drug. That was a long time ago and for another disease.