Contribute Try STAT+ Today

A decision by the drug maker Novartis to put a $2.1 million price tag on its latest product, a one-time treatment for a rare and fatal childhood disease, has sparked a national debate about just how much society should pay for the medicines it needs.

But for Tina Anderson, whose son will soon celebrate his fourth birthday thanks to the Novartis treatment, there is no debate. Her son, Malachi, was born with the most severe form of spinal muscular atrophy. Doctors said he’d be lucky to survive 12 months. But in late 2015, she and her family got him into a clinical trial in which he received Novartis’ gene therapy free of cost. More than three years later, he defies his diagnosis every day.

“To me, you cannot put a price on your child’s life,” said Anderson, who lives in Mansfield, Ohio. “If tomorrow we were told to pay back everything, we would. We would figure it out. Because our son is now alive and well.”


Novartis has argued that its therapy, approved last month as Zolgensma, is cost-effective even at $2.1 million. SMA is a progressive disease that gradually erodes muscular function. Patients often need wheelchairs and at-home care, and many suffer from lung infections that require hospitalization, all of which can add up to far more than the cost of Zolgensma.

Khrystal Davis’ son, Hunter, lived exactly that experience. Before he started getting a different treatment for SMA, a Biogen drug called Spinraza, he underwent a pair of lengthy hospitalizations that ran up a bill exceeding $1.5 million, a cost that comes on top of the thousands spent on medical equipment he needs to survive. But since getting on Spinraza in 2016, Hunter hasn’t needed a single hospitalization, said Davis, who lives in Austin, Texas. Spinraza, dosed every four months, has a list price of $375,000 a year, and she said its benefits are more than worth the cost.


“It has actually saved us money,” said Davis, who advocates for rare disease families and has testified before the Food and Drug Administration. “And it’s also really improved our quality of life.”

But some experts on drug pricing believe that Zolgensma’s price tag sets a worrying precedent.

A one-time payment of $2.1 million may look like a bargain compared with a lifetime of Spinraza, but if drug companies continue to price each new therapy at a premium to the last, the system might buckle beneath the cost. SMA affects only a few thousand patients in the U.S., but gene therapies for hemophilia and other genetic diseases are on the horizon. If each is priced like Zolgensma, the aggregate cost, passed down through insurers and across the health care system, could become untenable.

The question now is how soon insurers will add Zolgensma to their policies. Novartis has offered to allow payers to spread the cost of Zolgensma out over five years. Cigna, one of the nation’s largest pharmacy benefit managers, agreed to offer that deal to its employer and insurer clients.

Zolgensma’s FDA approval, announced May 24, was an emotional wallop to SMA parents. Their experiences — the grim prognoses from doctors, the frantic internet research, the devastating statistics — might now become relics of medical history. Future parents will learn about Zolgensma in the same breath as the diagnosis.

“I ugly-cried for like three hours,” Anderson said. “I was so excited.”

The ultimate goal, SMA parents said, is to expand the number of states that require newborns to be screened for the disease and ensure that both Zolgensma and Spinraza are available within days of diagnosis. The disease can progress rapidly, causing untreated children to miss milestones and develop disabilities that can be irreversible. If parents can get treatment immediately, they can give their children a better chance of leading a healthy life.

Matteo Almeida Courtesy Almeida family

That’s what happened with Nicole Almeida. She was five months pregnant when she learned her first child would be born with SMA.

“You can take him home, love him, take lots of pictures,” she remembers doctors saying, “but he won’t make it to his first birthday.”

Then she got in touch with Cure SMA, a nonprofit that supports families and funds research, and learned about the Zolgensma trial. She called the study coordinators once a week to make sure they didn’t forget about her son. When Matteo was born, in 2015, the Almeidas confirmed his diagnosis as quickly as they could and made the three-day drive from their Miami home to Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Ohio. There, on Aug. 6, at 27 days old, Matteo got his infusion of Zolgensma.

Almost four years later, Matteo runs, jumps, and “talks constantly,” Nicole Almeida said. He’s going to start school in August, all thanks to what the family calls “the miracle medicine that makes him run fast.”

Like Malachi Anderson, Matteo got his dose of Zolgensma for free. But his mother said she’d gladly pay for a medicine so effective. Her son’s life has been free of hospitalizations, wheelchairs, and ventilators. And, contrary to what doctors once predicted, he’s alive.

“If you look at it that way, so you paid $2.1 million up front, but then you’re not going to spend for the next God knows how many years,” she said. “To me it makes sense.”

  • noone is saying how much profit the company is or will be making from this drug. If the drug companies are breaking even or making a “reasonable” profit on the drug, then fine, the argument about what it saves the parents is at least understandable. BUT If the million dollar pill is paying for obscene CEO salaries (especially when much of the funding for r & d is paid by taxpayers to universities that actually develop these treatments and then are bought out by the big companies, that’s a whole nuther ball game. If they are making ridiculous profits on these high priced drugs, then I hope they rot in hell. The article does not seem to discuss that issue, or I missed it.

  • The reality is you do have to put a price on a life or on a year of quality living. It’s the only way you can make sense of this. If a drug costs $150,000 and allows a ninety year old to live a disabled 6 months more is it worth it? If this gene therapy costed $15,000 is it worth it? See you are doing math in your head putting a dollar figure on a year of life

  • This mother who received her dose for her son for free isn’t really in a position to comment on the price of the drug though, is she?

    • If the question of life and death is on the table free or not free means absolutely nothing. Being asked the thoughts on price makes it completely viable. When it comes to our children who live with this condition the only question is will they survive.

  • Is Novartis exploring application of the drug to Progressive Muscular Atrophy in adults?

    • Unless I am badly mistaken this drug only works on the particular gene that causes 5qSMA which represents roughly 95% of all cases of SMA. There are roughly 20 other SMA’s each caused by a different specific (to that type) gene. This drug basically fixes a broken or missing SMN 1 gene. If someone knows different please correct me.

  • You are lucky to be healthy; or do you simply live in another country? Many times a long bird watching walk is impossible. I hope your good health continues…

  • Unless I am doing the math incorrectly, the aggregate cost of Spinraza is more than a one time million dollar cost. Not to mention the cost of medical appointments, treatments, equipment, nursing etc etc with no one time hefty price. Financially it seems a no brainer.

  • On fourth thought, may I observe this number is not as absurd as I was prepared to say it was when I saw this in the morning. In the dark ages, perhaps 10 or so years ago, we used $50K/ year of life as a reasonable yard stick for cost effectiveness. Give a child just an extra 65 years of life and the $3,250,000 makes the $2.1 million appear to be a bargain.
    What is my personal feel? If I was told I need a $50K drug to live another year, I would probably ask how badly will it hurt if I don’t take it? Will I be able to function without it? If the pain would be tolerable and the function would be normal, I would decline to spend the money.
    (That is solely my observation. Given the years I have been granted already, I see little need for “extra innings.” And remember the song, “All good things must end” …)

  • Actually $2.1B is too much to pay for any drug if you cannot afford to pay for it. If only billionaires can afford a drug or treatment – would it be considered to be affordable? America has not yet rationalized it approach to healthcare. Asking $2.1B for a drug for one patient is not much different than holding a child hostage until the parents pay the hostage-takers ransom. The only difference in this instance is that taxpayers are being asked to pay the ransom. This is the current American biotech company’s business model for selling its newly approved life-saving drugs.

    • Sir, $2.1B is NOT the price. $2.1M is the cost. Being off by a thousand-fold means you neglected to read the article.

      Secondly, your point is moot, unless you do not have medical insurance.

      Thirdly, tell a family with a baby born with the sma mutation, that YOU feel their child is not worth the money.

      Fourthly, in their short time on this planet, the sick children can easily rack up more in hospital bills than $2.1M.

    • @Deb For 99.9% of Americans, 2.1M may as well be 2.1B. Both are unattainable sums of money. And this isn’t about putting a price on a child’s life…and if it were, well then the company that sells this drug is the one doing it. And they are messing things up for the rest of us who need coverage.

  • And if you’re one of those ragged few who don’t happen to have 2.1 million dollars?

    • This article and comments would serve as a good starting point to debate the pros and cons of the health insurance industry’s ‘preexisting condition’ coverage exemptions that the ACA eliminated, but for which many social conservatives are supportive.

  • As a bankruptcy lawyer, I suggest you keep your optimism cautious. Student loan borrowers often start out optimistic & grateful, but when the real trade-offs emerge, & the collectors start calling at work, the pricing realities set in for individuals; & the premiums & costs go up for government & insurance company payors, & the push to limit benefits starts.

Comments are closed.