Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by missedthecue 951 days ago
From the article: "Jefferies had estimated peak sales of... $250 million to $500 million for postpartum depression."

How much does it cost to bring a drug to market and then manufacture and distribute it? If it was a $6 pill, this would simply have never been developed, let alone distributed to struggling mothers.

I think the high cost of drugs is a symptom of an ignored issue. The fact is that it costs an eye-watering sum to get something to market. Obviously not all of it is remediable, after all, someone still has to do the biology and science work in a state of the art lab to invent these things. But some of it is remediable. I remember a press conference by the head of the FDA during Covid, who proudly stated that the vaccine was going to be approved 10x faster than other drugs without compromising safety or efficacy. That's great! But if we aren't sacrificing safety or efficacy and getting new drugs 10x as fast, why isn't that standard operating procedure?

If it were to cost only $20m or $50m or $100m to get a new drug to market instead of up to $2 billion (current avg cost estimate per CBO.gov website), I imagine drugs would start at lower price points, and even if the free market didn't do its thing, regulating prices would be easier without defacto banning new drugs.

But this is just a simple economic argument. I am not a biochemical researcher, and I don't want Thalidomide to happen again. But as long as it costs $3-$10 billion to break even on new drugs, (let alone profit) I don't see how drug prices can get lower. It's just math.

2 comments

Keep in mind that number comes from companies spending way more money on sales and marketing than actual RnD. E.g: https://www.ahip.org/news/articles/new-study-in-the-midst-of...

And let’s not forget the part where a lot of costs are also subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

The money they spend on sales and marketing won't include the $263 million they spent bribing law makers (they have three lobbyists for every member of Congress) or the dark money they're spending on bribes we're not even allowed to know about.

They also spend money making tiny tweaks to existing drugs that work just fine for the sole purpose of extending their patents and keeping drug prices as high as possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening)

A lot of basic research is government funded, i.e. grants for ongoing research at public universities, but except in extreme outlier cases like the global pandemic, private biotech companies don't get free government handouts for their drug research, and certainly not in meaningful amounts. For perspective, privately funded medical research spend is more than 5x the total NIH budget, and only a portion of the NIH budget actually goes to drug research.
They indeed do get plenty of free government handouts for R&D. Their labs take a fortune in NIH grants. Sure, a lot of that is to public institutuions but plenty goes to private labs.
> why isn't that standard operating procedure

That says nothing about system bandwidth: if normally they would approve 10 drugs in N months, but now they threw all available resources on one project to get N/10, it would make sense.