US buys up world stock of key Covid-19 drug remdesivir

[grasping the after wind]

It’s been shown to reduce the duration of symptoms. Apparently it interferes with the virus’s ability to reproduce itself to some extent. As I understand it efforts are geared towards using it in combination with other drugs, something akin to combination therapies for HIV maybe.

As I said it is not a cure of any kind and as a treatment it will be very lucrative for big pharma. HIV is the template that is being followed. Cures are not cost effective for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[loveofourlord]

The problem is it risks a bidding war, and ramping the cost of the medicine, meaning trhat poorer people can't pay as easily.

 

[Sparagmos]

Capitalism at its finest - ensure more people get sick by getting them back to work ASAP, ensuring steady profits for the drug manufacturer while also limiting the ability of other nations to combat the virus.

True, and devastating. This makes me ashamed to be an American.

 

[Hammster]

True, and devastating. This makes me ashamed to be an American.

The great thing about it is, you don’t have to stay. You can go to any great country you want.

 

[Tom 1]

As I said it is not a cure of any kind and as a treatment it will be very lucrative for big pharma. HIV is the template that is being followed. Cures are not cost effective for the pharmaceutical industry.

You're making some big assumptions there I think, one being that an actual cure, something that simply eliminates the virus could be developed as easily as testing an existing medicine. Pharmaceutical companies are always looking for the next big thing in medication, but like all other companies their basic drive is to create profit - that is what the whole shareholder system is built around and drives, people getting their monthly statements are interested in their balance going up, not in whatever the company is doing. Small government = more abuse of the system. That doesn't however make all the mythology that grows up around the reality any more convincing however, the notion that companies of all kinds avoid doing this or that thing that would be good but dents their profits is just a misunderstanding of how these things work - and the collective responsibility we all share for it. Companies follow consumer trends and respond to consumer choices, pharmaceutical companies can neither push ineffective or potentially dangerous drugs without the indifference of regulatory bodies, the compliance of physicians happy to take the offered bribes, and patients willing to pay more for a branded medication or stuff themselves with meds rather than looking after their health, but, in general, pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that tackle symptoms as effectively as they are able to. The purpose of regulation is (or should be) to ensure that medications are safe and that generic versions can be made available at lower prices. There isn't some other option where they could be churning out cures for everything but don't.

 

[Richard T]

You're right! I did say that. You can use your expertise on the matter to show me why I am wrong in assuming that 500,000 people are unlikely to be treated with the drug in the US over the next 3 months.

500,000 treatments is what I read were purchased. That is only enough for 100k people as most get about 5 treatments per patient.

 

[Tom 1]

500,000 treatments is what I read were purchased. That is only enough for 100k people as most get about 5 treatments per patient.

Yes, 6 doses per treatment regime.

 

[Richard T]

Gilead gave away over a million doses, it set prices for some other countries lower than in the U.S and it licensed the drug to some manufacturers in poorer countries. The Chinese have said they can produce it themselves without any payment under some emergency status. When Gilead came out with their strategy for Remdesivir sales, the stock actually went down. They are not trying to take advantage of anyone. They are a California based company and will have invested around 1 billion this year alone. They previously paid to develop and test it against ebola so they ate that cost as well. 70 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars went to help Gilead's efforts in this drug. So while other nations struck out, or never tried, Gilead stepped up to the plate and hit a single against COVID, which is the best we have right now. Given that U.S. citizens pay far more for prescription meds and finance far more R&D, why should we be surprised that the U.S. buys 500,000 doses? each patient gets around 5 doses, so that is not even enough for the USA. By the way, some other nations restrict exports of their drugs outright. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...ia-restricts-export-of-some-ingredients-drugs Vietnam restricted rice exports. Vietnam's ban on rice exports still in force, government may set limit: traders and China hoards masks. The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them, but Has Been Hoarding Them.
So basically we make our own candy, pay for it for others and then are called bullies for eating it most of it.
By the way if i seem a bit over the top, I have been an investor in this company and touted this very drug in Christian forums in February, well before the data came out. I am good with their pricing strategy though other shareholders I have heard want to vote out the CEO (O'Day) for being too generous. Some analysts suggested Gilead would charge far more, and most were not happy they gave the 1.5 million doses away. I don't know how the negotiations for Gilead went for selling future production. Some nations may not even want it. Likely there will be other combinations of drugs that will perform better. Statistically, deaths were not significantly better for those taking Remdesivir, though the average hospital stay of those recovered were shortened 3-4 days. Thus, in the US you pay a 3-4 thousand for treatment and you save maybe 12k in hospital costs. If we want to be mad at the U.S. it should be for many of us being irresponsible in not wearing or requiring masks, opening up too soon, and allowing too much travel. Had we mitigated the COVID cases better we would not need so many doses.

 

[Tom 1]

Gilead gave away over a million doses, it set prices for some other countries lower than in the U.S and it licensed the drug to some manufacturers in poorer countries. The Chinese have said they can produce it themselves without any payment under some emergency status. When Gilead came out with their strategy for Remdesivir sales, the stock actually went down. They are not trying to take advantage of anyone. They are a California based company and will have invested around 1 billion this year alone. They previously paid to develop and test it against ebola so they ate that cost as well. 70 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars went to help Gilead's efforts in this drug. So while other nations struck out, or never tried, Gilead stepped up to the plate and hit a single against COVID, which is the best we have right now. Given that U.S. citizens pay far more for prescription meds and finance far more R&D, why should we be surprised that the U.S. buys 500,000 doses? each patient gets around 5 doses, so that is not even enough for the USA. By the way, some other nations restrict exports of their drugs outright. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...ia-restricts-export-of-some-ingredients-drugs Vietnam restricted rice exports. Vietnam's ban on rice exports still in force, government may set limit: traders and China hoards masks. The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them, but Has Been Hoarding Them.
So basically we make our own candy, pay for it for others and then are called bullies for eating it most of it.

Pay for it for others? Where do you get that idea? There’s no expectation on a private company to give the drugs away for free. The problem with the America First idea is that is entirely dismisses the actual gains that come from collaboration and partnership, obfuscated by the regular cloud of nonsense about who pays for what coming out of the WH. In the longer term realising the US can’t be trusted will hopefully lead other developed and developing nations to collaborate internally and with each other more, I suppose we’ll see. In the meantime the US Govt aggressively making moves to corner the market on possible treatments while making a complete mess of their own response to the virus is alarming, like it or not. These kind of shortsighted dumbo tactics are not going to play out well. Over the next few months we will unfortunately see the pandemic becoming worse in the US and other nations increasingly giving Trump the distance and lack of cooperation he seems to be aiming for.

 

[Radagast]

U.S. buys up worldwide stock of remdesivir, drug seen as potential COVID-19 treatment

More accurately, the US has prepaid for 90% of the next 3 months of production.

 

[Richard T]

Pay for it for others? Where do you get that idea? There’s no expectation on a private company to give the drugs away for free. The problem with the America First idea is that is entirely dismisses the actual gains that come from collaboration and partnership, obfuscated by the regular cloud of nonsense about who pays for what coming out of the WH. In the longer term realising the US can’t be trusted will hopefully lead other developed and developing nations to collaborate internally and with each other more, I suppose we’ll see. In the meantime the US Govt aggressively making moves to corner the market on possible treatments while making a complete mess of their own response to the virus is alarming, like it or not. These kind of shortsighted dumbo tactics are not going to play out well. Over the next few months we will unfortunately see the pandemic becoming worse in the US and other nations increasingly giving Trump the distance and lack of cooperation he seems to be aiming for.

It is well known that pharma companies charge more in the USA because we have freer markets. So while a patented cholesterol drug in the EU might be 60 a month, here in the USA it might be 150 a month. This windfall, mostly coming from the USA, allows pharma companies to ratchet up their research and development spending. If the USA price fixed like other nations, much of that R&D would disappear. That is how we help pay for other nations to have great treatments.
While Trump calls it America first, (mostly refering to trade I think) I would just call it prudent, thoughIi can see where if a nation depended on troops or the U.S. for something you now cannot count on it. Trump is just stopping some of the imbalance, the America first sounds good domestically to his base but in reality, we hopefully are pulling our weight. Trump is not very diplomatic. What he said to Merkel is an embarrassment. I am sure we will be softer in rhetoric and more cooperative when Trump is gone. I do apologize too for America's lack of mitigation of COVID. I would not take travelers from the USA either.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You're making some big assumptions there I think, one being that an actual cure, something that simply eliminates the virus could be developed as easily as testing an existing medicine. Pharmaceutical companies are always looking for the next big thing in medication, but like all other companies their basic drive is to create profit - that is what the whole shareholder system is built around and drives, people getting their monthly statements are interested in their balance going up, not in whatever the company is doing. Small government = more abuse of the system. That doesn't however make all the mythology that grows up around the reality any more convincing however, the notion that companies of all kinds avoid doing this or that thing that would be good but dents their profits is just a misunderstanding of how these things work - and the collective responsibility we all share for it. Companies follow consumer trends and respond to consumer choices, pharmaceutical companies can neither push ineffective or potentially dangerous drugs without the indifference of regulatory bodies, the compliance of physicians happy to take the offered bribes, and patients willing to pay more for a branded medication or stuff themselves with meds rather than looking after their health, but, in general, pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that tackle symptoms as effectively as they are able to. The purpose of regulation is (or should be) to ensure that medications are safe and that generic versions can be made available at lower prices. There isn't some other option where they could be churning out cures for everything but don't.

I don't assume that a cure is possible I just recognize that a cure is less financially lucrative than a treatment and therefore big pharma is more interested in treatments than cures. The entire health care system is more interested in treatments than cures as treatments are more lucrative than cures.

Why did you throw the sentence "Small government= more abuse of the system" into the paragraph? There is no evidence that the sentence is a reflection of reality. The larger the government, the less responsive it needs to be to the citizenry, the more likely it is to become corrupt. True of the governments inside of corporations as well as the governments of citizens. Bureaucracies tend to be established that see the welfare of the bureaucracy as their prime responsibility rather than the welfare of their stockholders, or their customers, or their citizens. Small companies and small governments are more accountable to those that they are supposed to be serving.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Having the means to pay doesn’t make taking all of a resource much needed by others any less of a selfish act.

The drug companies will very quickly fill the gap.
Called making money.
M

 

[FenderTL5]

It is well known that pharma companies charge more in the USA because we have freer markets. So while a patented cholesterol drug in the EU might be 60 a month, here in the USA it might be 150 a month. This windfall, mostly coming from the USA, allows pharma companies to ratchet up their research and development spending. If the USA price fixed like other nations, much of that R&D would disappear..

That's a great argument, I'm not so sure I buy it entirely.

A significant portion of R&D is funded by the government through grants and public research projects. Much of the fundamental research is done in academic settings using public money. Pharma companies spend most of their R&D budgets on the "D" meaning pharmaceutical companies are increasingly in the business of running clinical trials and marketing drugs rather than plowing the hard ground for new discoveries.
The costs are high, certainly, but pharma only spends about 10-15% of their budgets on R&D, they spend twice as much on marketing. I can only wonder how much more they spend lobbying congress. In this sense the basic research costs are socialized while the profits are privatized.

The drug being discussed in this thread being exhibit A.
Gilead announced on Monday it will charge U.S. hospitals around $3,120 per privately insured patient for a treatment course of remdesivir. It is estimated in a May report that U.S. taxpayers contributed at least $70.5 million to the development of remdesivir. There is one estimate that Gilead could still profit if they were charging $310 per course (a tenth of what they have announced).

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) condemned Gilead's price-tag as "beyond disgusting."
"Taxpayers provided funding for the development of this drug. Now Gilead is price-gouging off it during a pandemic.. Coronavirus treatment must be free to all."

I would disagree with the 'free' part from Sen. Sanders but a reasonable figure between free and $3120 hovering around $300-500 would seem to be capitalistic and serve the public in my opinion.




(supportive reading linked here)

 

[Tom 1]

The drug companies will very quickly fill the gap.
Called making money.
M

Yes, a more sensible approach would be a coordinated effort to produce larger amounts of the drug. Gilead has done it's part by releasing the patent, while the US govt is still fumbling about making a hash of the whole response to the virus. I doubt if the doses bought by them will be used in anything like an efficient manner, we'll see where it's up to in September.

 

[Tom 1]

Small companies and small governments are more accountable to those that they are supposed to be serving.

For small companies I think that is generally true, they need to keep their customers. I prefer dealing with small companies for some things, where possible, as there is an element of direct negotiation involved. Small government however operates entirely differently, small government = corporations get away with doing whatever they want. There are endless examples of that, from the recent issues at Boeing, to the influence of big tobacco over your congress over the years, the profiteering by characters like the Dulles brothers, all the way back to the response to the potato famine in Ireland, something Americans regularly get riled up about, ironically largely the result of an England essentially ruled over by business interests rather than accountable government.

 

[grasping the after wind]

For small companies I think that is generally true, they need to keep their customers. I prefer dealing with small companies for some things, where possible, as there is an element of direct negotiation involved. Small government however operates entirely differently, small government = corporations get away with doing whatever they want. There are endless examples of that, from the recent issues at Boeing, to the influence of big tobacco over your congress over the years, the profiteering by characters like the Dulles brothers, all the way back to the response to the potato famine in Ireland, something Americans regularly get riled up about, ironically largely the result of an England essentially ruled over by business interests rather than accountable government.

You mentioned Boeing and the tobacco lobby as if the US had small government. The US government is huge.

 

[Richard T]

That's a great argument, I'm not so sure I buy it entirely.

A significant portion of R&D is funded by the government through grants and public research projects. Much of the fundamental research is done in academic settings using public money. Pharma companies spend most of their R&D budgets on the "D" meaning pharmaceutical companies are increasingly in the business of running clinical trials and marketing drugs rather than plowing the hard ground for new discoveries.
The costs are high, certainly, but pharma only spends about 10-15% of their budgets on R&D, they spend twice as much on marketing. I can only wonder how much more they spend lobbying congress. In this sense the basic research costs are socialized while the profits are privatized.

The drug being discussed in this thread being exhibit A.
Gilead announced on Monday it will charge U.S. hospitals around $3,120 per privately insured patient for a treatment course of remdesivir. It is estimated in a May report that U.S. taxpayers contributed at least $70.5 million to the development of remdesivir. There is one estimate that Gilead could still profit if they were charging $310 per course (a tenth of what they have announced).

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) condemned Gilead's price-tag as "beyond disgusting."
"Taxpayers provided funding for the development of this drug. Now Gilead is price-gouging off it during a pandemic.. Coronavirus treatment must be free to all."

I would disagree with the 'free' part from Sen. Sanders but a reasonable figure between free and $3120 hovering around $300-500 would seem to be capitalistic and serve the public in my opinion.




(supportive reading linked here)

I think your points are well made and provide a bit more balance. Yes, much of the basic research is done with government money. You are basically right on R & D as a percent of sales too. Average Research & Development Costs for Pharmaceutical Companies I might add too that this type of spending also creates tax savings. Still, if pharma companies know their drugs will be capped on price, a lot of new drugs will never get tested. Kind of a policy conundrum. If the government clamps down on price, there are fewer lives saved. If it stays out of pricing, treatment can become too expensive. I can remember when the government accepted the cost of provenge that would extend late stage prostrate cancer lives by about 3-6 months. Cost of that drug was around 93,000 dollars.

 

[Nithavela]

The great thing about it is, you don’t have to stay. You can go to any great country you want.

Except those in the EU.

 

[Tom 1]

You mentioned Boeing and the tobacco lobby as if the US had small government. The US government is huge.

The doesn't relate to the number of govt employees but things like decentralised govt, limits on federal govt where states have a degree of autonomy, flexible regulations, a system of legal bribery (lobbying) whereby politicians can work primarily for private interests without censure, and so on. 'Big' government is government that provides healthcare and makes national determinations that regional govt can comment on but need to enforce (etc).