Skip to comments.Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?'
Posted on 04/12/2018 9:08:31 AM PDT by MNDude
Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering "gene therapy" treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled "The Genome Revolution."
"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
No. It hasnt been since doctors allowed third party payer into it
Our health care system relies on people being sick
A rare moment of honesty.
They sound like Luddites. Efficiency raises the standard of living overall even if it means you can’t keep the same job for 60 years. Otherwise we would all go back to being subsistence farmers. A healthy population has far more benefits than disadvantages.
I’ll never forget the casual remarks of a medical school dean back in the 70’s - can we imagine a cure for cancer and the massive layoffs and disinvestment that would follow...
How about we take their management out and shoot them in the head?
Doctors make their money by cutting you or selling drugs. Hospitals would be there to set bones or give stiches, and deliver babies.
There is no money in healthy people
This is why we need to be a Christian nation.
Don’t know what they’re worried about.
The future holds a wealth of injuries from civil strife and mob violence.
More than enough to ensure full employment for healthcare professionals.
You have a different yardstick.
“Cure” IS the measure of success for biotechs.
If you pretend that impacts your measure of impact to profit growth, your yardstick is broken.
Did Christ or His Disciples lack for attention as they cured the sick?
Q has talked about this and the fact that its coming out in a Mockingbird media outlet may indicate that the Deep State CIA is no longer in charge of the 4am talking point dump.
The question is completely mercenary and vile. It reinforces my belief that there is no collective human enterprise in the world eviler than Goldman Sachs. With that said, there is actually a way to make money on curing a disease.
Whomever comes up with the cure for ‘x’ disease, gets a percentage (higher at first, declining over 10-20 years to 0) of the costs that government insurance (medicare and medicare) and private insurance companies shell out every year to treat ‘x’. Plus the company, school, or researcher that discovers the cure gets their compensation for the cure itself.
Incentivize a cure, reduce costs over the long term, and leave residual cash flow for the cure. Everyone wins in the long term.
“Ill never forget the casual remarks of a medical school dean back in the 70s - can we imagine a cure for cancer and the massive layoffs and disinvestment that would follow...”
So the entire Healthcare “system” is predicated on simply treating and re-treating the sick! Cures are a bad thing! Cures would put tens of thousands of “healthcare professionals” on the streets!
And there is a corollary here. What do we do when people are 1) displaced in the workforce by robotics and 2) live to be 150 years old? Here we are “allowing non-skilled labor” (i.e illegal Mexicans primarily) to come here when the need for them is quickly going away.
>Q has talked about this and the fact that its coming out in a Mockingbird media outlet may indicate that the Deep State CIA is no longer in charge of the 4am talking point dump.
Not being Quarrelsome, but Q hasn’t said anything we all haven’t known all along.
A common way of redpilling is to put the truth in “fiction”; William Gibson wrote this in 1981, and as a movie Johnny Mnemnonic was released in 1995, so we’re not talking new discoveries here.
It is interesting to see that a MSM outlet will dare to mention it, though. That’s fairly new...
I believe that the globalists want us sick because it is more profitable. It also makes us more fearful and docile and compliant.
The medical school dean was very shortsighted. If we had a robust and healthy population, we would have a great market for wellness and sports medicine. All those healthy citizens are going to be playing a lot more sports and breaking a lot more arms and legs - not life-threatening, but definitely something that would keep doctors busy.
When people disinvest in one industry, they invest somewhere else. When people are laid off from one job/industry, they either learn new skill or they apply their skills in a related area. Are we really to believe that curing a few diseases would mean that people no longer needed medical care? Are we really to believe that doctors (who we trust with our life and death decisions and treatment) are so stupid as to be unemployable in any other capacity?
Dead patients dont tend to by more product.
Outrage headline for clicks, but a reasonable article. People should read it, because it’s got several solutions to the issue of how to we stay in business while attempting to put ourselves out of business by curing our customer base.
They were not proposing that actual cures not be developed, but pointing out the basic math of declining revenue from a declining (cured) customer base.
Basic message: a successful bio-tech company cannot be a one trick pony with a single magic pill, but be highly innovative with a diverse cabinet of cures.
In other news, the single shot GM “cure” for cancer is starting human trials soon.
Great things are happening in bio-tech and monetizing it through free market investing is the fastest, cheapest way to fund the R&D needed for more cures of more diseases.
Unless you think letting federal bureaucrats pick and choose who gets funded and what gets researched is a better model.
Goldman Sachs can relax; that’s not where big pharma has benn, nor is it going there. The REAL money is in treating symptoms, not curing the disease.
The only difference is that with President Trump we are actually fighting back against the darkness and winning. Before Donald Trump’s victory we, who were aware, could only comment, or not participate, or in extreme cases, actively oppose and get murdered for our efforts.
The bottom Line!! It isn’t the money, it’s the greed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.