Cancer medicines: a private vice for public benefit?
El que costa un medicament pel càncer:
Over 23 years of cancer medicine R&D the mean cost in USD of developing a cancer medicine to pharmaceutical companies has been around $4.4 billion. But this hides a huge range of costs from ‘just’ 276 million USD for Dinutuximab for post consolidation therapy for childhood high risk neuroblastoma to 13.4 and 15.8 billion USD, respectively, for Durvalumab (used to treat certain types of bladder, lung, and biliary tract cancer) and Isatuximab (used in treatment of blood cancer multiple myeloma).
I el retorn de la inversió (ROI):
Overall, ROI for cancer medicines with sufficient maturity i.e., launched between 1997-2015 is between 435 to 551%. Again, this hides huge variation. A substantial number of cancer medicines to date have negative or flat ROI’s as low as minus 78-87% in some cases. However, some cancer medicines launched in late 1990’s to mid 2000 have generated astronomical ROIs; for example, Erlotinib (2794%) (pancreatic and lung cancer), Trastuzumab (3421%) (breast cancer), Rituximab (2523%) (Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma) and Bevacizumab (3200%) (colon, lung, glioblastoma and renal cell cancers). This reflects the fact the the oncology business model is still driven by blockbusters.
I el missatge:
The problem thus is that the entire structure and incentive framework governing the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry are geared towards a specific type of behaviour. Short of completely reforming the entire capital-industrial market, starting in the USA, expecting industry to behave any differently from what it is doing right now is a dead end. It is an ideological and technical cul-de-sac. Arguing about the rights and wrongs of industry profits in oncology misses the point. The system is geared towards profit maximisation that is completely independent of R&D costs, it is insensitive to whether the drugs deliver meaningful therapeutic benefit, or whether the cancer medicines are priced ‘fairly’ for any given country.
Les opcions:
One is faced with two choices. Accept that progress is a private vice with public benefit. Essentially align with Bernard Mandeville’s position in Fable of the Bees (1705) that vicious greed, properly channelled by skilful politics, will lead to invisible co-operation and public benefit. Espousing any higher virtue is mere hypocrisy. In this world the only challenge is external. If, for example, China was to exercise its considerable biopharmaceutical muscle in oncology to massively undercut global prices. The other choice falls more in line with the Rawlsian idea of social justice. In this world a new social contract is constructed that truly reflects equitable value. Respective institutions all align along this common public good backbone. Prices truly reflect clinical benefit and are set to a fair level that maximises patient access. R&D is incentivised on societal worth and not profit.
Article per guardar i per reflexionar. El cost d'oportunitat dels medicaments pel càncer és precisament tot aquest valor social que som incapaços de capturar i que deixem de dedicar a altres usos més valuosos.
World Press Photo 2024
