Drug makers need to be able to sell breakthrough drugs like Luxturna at market prices to earn back their huge development costs and fund future research.
Drug makers need to be able to sell breakthrough drugs like Luxturna at market prices to earn back their huge development costs and fund future research.

The free market is curing blindness

By Sandip Shah

The FDA recently approved a revolutionary drug that could restore sight to 2,000 nearly-blind Americans.

Doctors inject the personalized “gene therapy,” called Luxturna, directly into patients’ eyes. The treatment overrides a rare genetic mutation that causes severe vision problems and ultimately leads to total blindness. In clinical trials, the treatment not only halted vision loss but also significantly improved many patients’ sight.

However, the one-time therapy carries an eye-popping price tag: $850,000. The price has sparked renewed debate about supposedly predatory pricing in the drug industry.

With very few exceptions, drug prices aren’t predatory — or even arbitrary. They reflect the value of the innovation, which came at colossal risk and expense inherent to pharmaceutical innovation. Attempts to impose price controls would stifle research and prevent the creation of medical miracles.

Creating these miracles is time-consuming and expensive. For instance, it took nearly six years and $400 million to develop Luxturna. And Luxturna is one of just a few success stories — barely one in 10 drugs that enter human trials ever makes it to market.

Gene therapy is in its infancy, and so it’s riskier to pursue this research than it is to pursue research for run-of-the-mill medications. But drug companies are diving in. They’re developing therapies to treat high-need diseases like hemophilia and leukemia.

Because of this immense risk, drug makers have to be able to charge prices that provide a reasonable shot at recouping their huge expenses. Doing so is the only way to encourage researchers to investigate and develop brand-new pharmaceuticals that target rare diseases, like Luxturna.

But if we don’t give researchers the chance to recoup their investments, they might stop pursuing this new, risky research.

High prices don’t last forever. Once a drug’s patent expires, generic drug manufacturers can introduce cheap alternatives. About 90 percent of drugs dispensed in the United States are low-cost generics. Over the next five years, roughly $100 billion in brand name sales will start facing generic competition, forcing brand-name manufacturers to cut their prices to remain competitive.

Such competition also occurs when multiple companies introduce unique medicines to treat the same disease.

Consider Sovaldi, a breakthrough hepatitis C cure that cost $1,000 per pill when first introduced a few years ago. That price prompted a firestorm of condemnation. But it plummeted by half after competitor drugs hit the market, and it’s still falling.

Unfortunately, many politicians and pundits ignore how competition drives down prices over time. They instead fixate on the initial prices of drugs. And they’ve started calling for the government to regulate prices.

Such price controls would be hugely counterproductive. Price caps would shrink or eliminate companies’ projected returns on drug development projects. So drug makers would stop investing in risky research. Many of the 7,000 medicines currently in development, over 500 of which are for rare diseases, would never reach pharmacy shelves or patients’ medicine cabinets.

It’d be a tragedy to deprive patients of such transformative treatments.

Drug makers need to be able to sell breakthrough drugs at market prices to earn back their huge development costs and fund future research. Heavy-handed government interventions would drive away research capital and stomp out the next generation of new treatments.

Sandip Shah is the founder and president of Market Access Solutions, a global market access consultancy, where he develops strategies to optimize patient access to life-changing therapies.

Articles related to “The free market is curing blindness”

Beauty is pain: Cosmetic animal testing and cruelty-free products

Zion Eye Institute implants first ocular telescope in southern Utah

The Art of Beauty: How modern art has influenced the eye makeup of Marie Dausell

The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.

How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent

Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:

—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.

—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.

—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”

—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).

—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.

—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.

Click This Ad

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here