If there's shady politics involved in this one then perhaps there are additional solutions needed. For another example, there's the cure for Hep C that costs $84,000.
The Hep C cure is an extremely valuable innovation.
I certainly hope that lots of people receive the cure in a rapid fashion, but I'm not sure that it really falls to the innovator to provide it to them.
(lots of payers (insurance and national healthcare systems) are paying high fees for it because it makes sense for them over the medium term to do so; it represents a cost savings)
As a society we should still probably seek cheaper ways of finding such cures, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bemoan a new, better and cheaper treatment.
The point is to get the innovator payed in a way that justifies their investment AND help everyone that can be helped. I'm not bemoaning or blaming; the point is to design a better system. Right now paying the innovator requires limiting availability for no good reason.
I once saw someone propose an 'X-prize' style system of publicly funded incentive based competitions for medical device and pharma research. Interesting idea.
I certainly hope that lots of people receive the cure in a rapid fashion, but I'm not sure that it really falls to the innovator to provide it to them.
(lots of payers (insurance and national healthcare systems) are paying high fees for it because it makes sense for them over the medium term to do so; it represents a cost savings)
As a society we should still probably seek cheaper ways of finding such cures, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bemoan a new, better and cheaper treatment.