• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    You get what you pay for, in a sense. How would the public respond to a one-time cure being sold for more than the total lifetime cost of treatment? Not well, but the thing is that responding like that is effectively expressing a preference for the lifelong treatment.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not an imaginary scenario. For example, look at Sovaldi, the $84,000 hepatitis C cure. That’s less than the total cost of long-term treatment but it didn’t exactly make Gilead popular.

    • gl4d10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      the other big thing is that for most with chronic illnesses, the public isn’t looking, nor do they care, if i had the money, i would try anything, but i hardly leave my house and i can’t afford to work, so i’ll take whatever my insurance covers even if that ininofitself decreases my lifespan and causes me pain, hey actually, you just reminded me of a cure that “the public” doesn’t talk much about, when will euthanasia be legal? oh but that also is an abrupt end to a condition that could still be squeezed for profit, do you know your audience?