[InTheArena]

Here is the problem with this statement - it assumes that the drug is worth the maximum amount that they could extract from the customer (insurance companies, patients and governments for it). Nothing says that they couldn't sell it for less, just that they thought they could get this much for it.

[ctdonath]

A thing is worth what another will pay for it.

[ineedasername]

And no one was willing to pay this much for the drug, but the inexplicably decided no revenue was better than lowering the price.

[tptacek]

It's not "inexplicable". uniQure is a going concern with treatments in the pipeline for Huntingtons, hemophilia, and congestive heart failure. They have a finite amount of resources and are allocating them to projects that they're more optimistic about than this one. Glybera is of questionable efficacy and is very expensive to administer (they're on the hook for long-term monitoring for everyone they dose).

It's not at all hard to see why they'd stop production.

[flatline]

How much does it cost to manufacture the drug, and in such relatively low quantities? The article did not say but it pointed to this as part of their decision.

[ctdonath]

"Pay" goes both ways. The manufacturer wasn't willing to pay for a million dollars by making this treatment.

[NickM]

Maybe caving in and lowering the revenue would encourage future customers for other expensive treatments to boycott high prices and hold off for price drops. Refusing to negotiate and forgoing revenue now could be the rational strategy in the long term.

[obmelvin]

Yeah, but the drug also has weak efficacy. Who cares if it is "only" 100k instead of 1M if it do what it claims?

[grecy]

healthcare should never be one of those things.

[DoreenMichele]

"Your money or your life?" doesn't seem like a wonderfully ethical medical question when aimed at folks who probably cannot afford it even if it is a cure, adds decades to their life and you are willing to take installment payments.