Estimates of how much it costs to invent and test a new medicine have been weaponized in the debate about how much drugs should cost once they’re on the market. The pharmaceutical industry, citing a $2.8 billion figure from a group at Tufts University, argues that prices need to be high enough to justify huge financial risks. But critics, sometimes citing figures as low as $43 million, argue that the higher figure is just an excuse for price gouging.

A team of researchers tried to settle this debate with an analysis of publicly available data and they came up with their own figure that seems to split the difference: $1.3 billion. The research appeared Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

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

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus 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
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • 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.
  • Truth be told, there is (almost) no such thing as a “drug cost.” It is more properly “an enterprise cost.”. The successful one(s) have to cover the failures and the overall support framework.
    Think of it as a farm(or pharm…) the cash crops have to support the fallow field, the failed yields and everything else it takes to ” Run the pharm.” This is not an answer – just “an observation.”

    • Fair point. The question is how many combines, harvesters, silos and GPS controlled machines (translated – corporate jets, vanity buildings, limos ….) the farm needs to operate at a profit. Does the farmer take workers out to night clubs and the Caribbean if they do a good job?

      The cost of successfully and profitability operating a Pharma company is more than the cost of R&D, Clinical Development, Regulatory and Production. The question is how much more.

      A good farmer understands where investment provides a return while permitting pricing that is competitive.

      Having grown up on a farm and having spent three decades in Big Pharma I can appreciate the analogy. The difference is that farmers cannot unilaterally set the price of their product or in concert with other farmers, even if it’s not formally price-fixing. Set it too high and you will have competition not only locally but also internationally.

      It is what it is, but it’s hard to defend once you take a deeper look into the business and where the money is being spent.

Comments are closed.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy