A bipartisan group of state attorneys general is urging the federal government to sidestep the patents held by Gilead Sciences (GILD) for remdesivir, the only authorized treatment for Covid-19, over frustration with pricing and supplies set by the manufacturer.

In arguing their case, the state officials maintain Gilead has been “unable to assure” a sufficient supply of the medication to hospitals across the U.S. and has “[placed] its profit margins” over patients by charging the federal government $2,340 for a five-day treatment course, even though U.S. taxpayer dollars contributed to the discovery of the drug and manufacturing costs are reportedly low.

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
  • 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.
  • The US Government would need to issue a compulsory license to overcome Gilead’s patents. However, unless there is a manufacturer ready to supply remdesivir, a compulsory license won’t mean anything. It’s unlikely that any company would invest in manufacturing pharmaceutical-grade remdesivir drug products for the US with uncertainty about a market.

    Would it have been good for the US to condition its $70 million in remdesivir on some price benefit? Maybe, but that’s small change to Gilead and they might not have gone for the deal. It’s certainly unreasonable for the US to try to impose conditions after-the-fact.

    The smart purchaser would invest in alternative repurposing opportunities, like dexamethasone, to push Gilead to lower the price of remdesivir.

    It’s also possible that Gilead’s price is reasonable, all things considered, and we should focus on other things.

  • “Sidestep”? That’s a code word for “steal”. Why don’t we ever hear from these people before the money is spent on clinical trials, building the manufacturing infrastructure, etc.?

  • Do keep in mind that Remdesivir is difficult to manufacture. Would it be more reasonable for Gilead contract with other pharma to manufacture Remdesivir? But even that would not increase the number of vials available anytime soon. Is there a way of lessening the time for manufacturing yet keeping good quality control. My guess is that Gilead is doing the best they can.

Comments are closed.

Sign up to receive a free weekly opinions recap from our community of experts.
Privacy Policy