Skip to Main Content
Contribute Try STAT+ Today

Gilead Sciences, in a self-described effort to do “the right and responsible thing,” may have just set a precedent its industry peers will come to resent.

In picking a price for the Covid-19 drug remdesivir that is, in the words of CEO Daniel O’Day, “well below” its actual value, Gilead said it was prioritizing “broad and equitable access” over company profits.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT+ is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • While I won’t second guess Gilead’s undoubtedly agonizing decision around resdemivir pricing, at a broader industry level, I am not convinced that we should be thinking about drug pricing as a binary choice between serving more patients and making more profits. In fact, the power of PBMs and insurers has reached a point where pricing drugs lower may in the end result in greater profits (due to higher volumes), and conversely aggressive pricing may not lead to profits. The case of the PCSK9 antibodies is salutary in that respect: both Amgen and Sanofi/Regeneron priced their products too high, leading to draconian access restrictions that meant neither company was helping many patients AND neither company was generating much profit. So the challenge for us in industry is to find a better balance, where our products are profitable (after all, we are businesses not charities), and not priced so high that access becomes overly restrictive.

    It is also worth remembering that Gilead is probably in a position to not make much (if any) profits on resdemivir precisely because it makes sufficient profits on other products. In the end, drug companies have to generate a reasonable return across their portfolio, but many individual products are not profitable and are cross-subsidized by other, more profitable products. And no, the drug industry does not make excessive profits. In fact, looking at return on equity (in essence the profits generated compared to how much shareholders have invested in a firm), biotech badly lags most other industries, and Pharma is around the average ROE ( If biotechs and Pharma companies fail to generate a reasonable return for their investors, investors will take their money elsewhere, and the R&D that has fueled progress across so many diseases will grind to a halt.

Comments are closed.